Sure, you can flip what you said on your head all you like... but it still won't have anything more to do with my position or what I described to you.
A resource which starts at maximum and is regenerated over time is the exact opposite of a resource which starts at 0 at is generated by actions. How did you quote the prior and arrive at the latter?
I am aware of how StB MCH played. (Though, no, Overheating was not always a dps loss. Its potential damage gain was frustratingly minimal for how much effort was involved in order to exploit it at all, but those opportunities did exist.)Infact, we even had a job similar in the form of original SB Machinist. You wanted you build up heat to get above 50 Heat to get access to the heated shots, then used the stronger Heat Blast to bring it back down before you capped at 100 (Overheating was a DPS loss on the original MCH), so you had to strike a balance between 50 and 95 for maximum damage.
It's still the exact opposite of what I'm talking about here. You're describing a from-zero resource built by actions and which must on occasion make use of a weaker action in order not to be penalized, as opposed to a from-max resource regenerated over time and which allows some n actions per minute and, further, per fight (as per the time the time it'd take to drop initially to the effective minimum resource).
_____________
No, I understood completely. I'm asking, if the default UI is so useless as to make enmity management impossible, what "better" UI solution you'd propose. I had little to no trouble minimizing excess enmity with the default UI.As for the enmity comments, I don't think you quite understood where I was going. To give simplistic examples, tanks have 2 attacks, one that does enmity, one that does damage, and DPS just damage consistently. This means you want to use the enmity combo to keep above the DPS, but not so much that you could potentially lose out on a damage hit.
I'd be fine with seeing a "+<value>k" descriptor added beside the lead enmity, or a + or - value added for ones, to better show that exact difference, but that's something that took a modder an scant afternoon to add to the game. If the devs wanted to actually bring back aggro management into the game's modern climate, they could provide something equivalent.
Again, as per my very first post here, I have no interest in readding enmity management if it remains a mere matter of remaining the lead entry on a damage-times-modifier table by a margin that ought to be minimized by the fight's end. But to say assume absolutely that the effective removal of enmity management, as per the past two expansions, would be reversed without any chance of accordant UI improvements or surrounding changes by which to situate it to the current game... is not sensible.
You're strawmanning again. I've not asked for the return of Enmity skills.And I fail to see how this would make things fun. Ok, a mob decides it wants to smack the healer, fine, I am now forced to use the enmity combo to get it back, or, more likely, just provoke it, if provoke is down, shield lob/tomahawk etc. to get it back. This isn't going to make tanking more engaging, it is just going to be annoying.
I have, multiple times in this thread alone, pointed out that I think they're bloated -- inefficient ways of handling things that should instead be covered by more involved undermechanics, rather than GCD choices limited to a single role's kits.
I merely don't think that Enmity skills competing with damage skills makes them non-mechanics any more than buffing GCDs like Twin Snakes or Heavy Thrust would compete with the damage skills that benefit them. Minimizing excess margin, in either case, is the mechanic -- however shallow it may be in the case of Enmity-enhanced skills.
Mob AI and stuns/interrupts are not mutually exclusive.If you want to make things more interesting, you need to make use of the tanks full kit, things that are currently woefully underused are Low Blow and Interject.
What's next? Mobs can't have more than a single AI script because we couldn't then have active mitigation? We can't have involved rotations because then we couldn't make use of Interject? None of these things conflict with each other.