Multi-tank busters should apply to the main tank in an alliance instead of a DPS

[Neihel]

It's okay if you don't understand what you're being told.

more like you don't want to read the thread then you see the word buster and give me a copy pasted response

[Sqwall]

Not "the mechanics", a specific mechanic that you may unexpectedly get marked for if the tank is dead.

If you get that marker, it is now your job as the person with the marker to stand clear of the party.

I don't know why people are even talking about enmity in regard to this mechanic if it's going to target the tank regardless of their status, as long as they are alive. If they're dead, it doesn't matter how much enmity they previously had. Neither will Diversion stop the mechanic from passing to a non-tank member of the party, whether it's you or not.

Trying to pass it around would only sow more chaos at a party scale, even if it helps you individually.

Most people that main tanks as there #1 job don't consider this an issue. I have NEVER thought for a second enmity was hard to handle. 2.0 maybe until I got better ilevel gear and those dang DRG BLM OP damage were hard to keep at bay....but NEVER did I struggle with it. I still had provoke if I got frustrated.

If I get the tank buster marker as a MNK, because the tank died prior...well thems the brakes and there is nothing I can do about it. I suppose I can be happy that I was chosen due to my high DPS output.

This has become a non-sense post about things that some don't fully grasp, and simple practice and understanding a fight will fix. As opposed to "fix the fight so I don't have to work"

[Shurrikhan]

I'll second that this is completely rubbish, I've often been an OT in alliance without stance and still taken the intended simultaneous tankbuster while a couple DPS were ahead of me on the aggro list.

And I have definitely taken 1 of the 3 tankbusters as a DPS even in an Alliance Raid fight without any tank having yet died. The tank-targeting (rather than lead-enmity-targeting) mechanics are not quite ubiquitous.

"I didn't like what happened in an Alliance raid so change the game for me, please."

To be fair, every change or addition can be seen as having a similarly "selfish" basis...

"I don't like having to manually find which bag my item is in so change the game for me, please." --> Item-search function.

"I don't like having to check which boxes are filled to the right of each tab within the duty list to see what all I'm signed up so change the game for me, please." --> List of duties one has signed up for included at the bottom of the duty list.

"I don't like being unable to use glamour in PvP so change the game for me, please." --> The dev team finally manages what they a few months earlier called technically and forever impossible and is able to hold appearance data between servers.

"I don't like having to possibly hold off on generating enmity for a moment during a tank swap so change the game for me, please." --> Shirk added.

This has become a non-sense post about things that some don't fully grasp, and simple practice and understanding a fight will fix. As opposed to "fix the fight so I don't have to work"

Everything about this thread's request is from a non-tank's perspective. What "work" would a DPS be expected to do by which to survive a hit for 50% more than their max HP?

[Sqwall]

"I don't like having to possibly hold off on generating enmity for a moment during a tank swap so change the game for me, please." --> Shirk added.

Shirk was added to combat this entire post, it was added to PREVENT DPS and Healers from having enmity creep.

As off tank I would shirk ALL the time just to keep the really high DPS/Healers from overtaking. Just check the agro list...BLM is close....shirk....voila BLM drops considerably lower in the agro table and i'm still second as OT. Not their fault...they just have good DPS.

The same was for Diversion. It was there SOLEY to prevent grabbing highest enmity.

Shirk/Provoke has to be the greatest tool tanks have at their disposal aside from invulns. The control of enmity and where the boss is focusing is crucial in any encounter. Tank swaps would force MT to stop DPSing so the OT could ramp up after a provoke.

Shirk is incredibly powerful, and I don't think it was added to make fights easier...I think it was added because they didn't know how to fix enmity generation at the time. Now Shirk/Provoke is used for quite literally EVERY tank swap. When I hear tank swap in a fight....I get my shirk macro ready.

I would prefer more tank swaps in fights just to keep tanks on their toes. Personally.

[Mavrias]

Point is, the second in the enmity list should be a tank.

Thats great and all, but its entirely irrelevant to what OP is talking about.

In the Nier raids, multi hit tank busters apply to all three tanks regardless of where they are on the aggro list. If Alliance A's tank is dead or DC'd, even if Alliance B and C are first and second respectively on the aggro list, the top DPS in Alliance A is going to take the third tank buster regardless.

[Shurrikhan]

Shirk was added to combat this entire post, it was added to PREVENT DPS and Healers from having enmity creep.

It neither combats anything in the OP nor my post. In an alliance raid with a "tankbuster" mechanic that targets the highest enmity player (rather than the tank) in each party, "enmity creep" (a non-issue regardless if (A) tanks had their stances on, (B) the stances were on by default, or (C) those mechanics were swapped to target tanks, not lead enmity) cannot be usefully combatted by Shirk, because you (1) need that enmity for yourself and (2) cannot Shirk the tanks from the other parties' tanks with Shirk regardless.

The same was for Diversion. It was there SOLEY to prevent grabbing highest enmity.

These things cannot both be true, seeing as Shirk was not similarly singular in its purpose. In the LL introducing it, Shirk was given as an aid to smooth tank swaps. Yes, it could be used in multi-tank parties for periodic enmity transfer when coupled with Provoke, but that then means it had two ways to utilize it. Diversion has only ever had the one use. And it was removed for being mere bloat as soon as it was understood that it was pure maintenance.

Shirk/Provoke has to be the greatest tool tanks have at their disposal aside from invulns. The control of enmity and where the boss is focusing is crucial in any encounter. Tank swaps would force MT to stop DPSing so the OT could ramp up after a provoke.

All this is wholly irrelevant to the thread at hand, but a brief correction: a tank swap would only force downtime if done poorly.

Shirk is incredibly powerful, and I don't think it was added to make fights easier...I think it was added because they didn't know how to fix enmity generation at the time.

Then it's pure bloat. If it's literally just adding enmity generation by periodic use, that could be have been more efficiently provided by a simply increase to their enmity scaling, or even slight modifications to Provoke itself.

I would prefer more tank swaps in fights just to keep tanks on their toes. Personally.

Same. Again, though, that has nothing to do with this thread.

It is, again:

1. For ALLIANCE RAIDS
2. when a TANK HAS DIED
3. such that TANKS TAKE ON THE BURDEN OF TANKS' SCREW-UPS, rather than a random non-tank being killed for having played well.

[DaulBan]

I still think that these responsibilities should be handed out on a party basis, not relying on people across different parties to know whether or not a tank has died. Or, given that all the tank buster indicators are the same, it's not like it'd be easy to tell at a glance if you had a double tank buster. Or in the case of something like Thunder God, where it applies physical vuln, this change has the super cool effect of instantly killing another tank no matter what! Which would be very stupid.

If someone on your team dies, the healers or SMN/RDM have to get them up. If the tank is dumb and dies, and you wind up getting a TB, that's just how it is. It's not all the tanks collective responsibility to keep one another alive, they have zero ability to do so. They can't share mitigation (aside from Reprisal) and whatever person is holding the main boss has as much obligation to either ST as any other melee -- make sure they can hit it.

[aodhan_ofinnegain]

And I have definitely taken 1 of the 3 tankbusters as a DPS even in an Alliance Raid fight without any tank having yet died. The tank-targeting (rather than lead-enmity-targeting) mechanics are not quite ubiquitous.

If you can tell me which simultaneous buster it was that you took, that targeted you instead of a tank, in an alliance raid with all three tanks alive, then I will happily concede if I am wrong in my assumption but thus far my anecdotal experience having tanked every alliance raid many times over, would tell me your statement is false.

[Lyth]

If there's no risk of an untanked mob killing players, what is the point in having tanks? You might as well invite Trust system Thancred to auto-position, auto-mitigate, and auto-tank the bosses for you, and let all the existing tanks swap over to DPS.

[Shurrikhan]

If there's no risk of an untanked mob killing players, what is the point in having tanks? You might as well invite Trust system Thancred to auto-position, auto-mitigate, and auto-tank the bosses for you, and let all the existing tanks swap over to DPS.

This thread has never had anything to do with untanked mobs, though, so much as just Alliance Raid tri-tank-busters?