I want to expand briefly on this dichotomy (between barriers and % mitigation -- or, front-loaded mitigation and steady mitigation, gear-scaled mitigation and content-scaled mitigation... however one may wish to name the two types).
Let us think of a fight as having periods of moderate and deep spikes of damage (each spike defined as or split at roughly the duration of a CD that'd reasonably respond to it) -- i.e., ones that fall short of the threshold by which content-scaled mitigation surpasses gear-scaled mitigation and ones that push past it. One might think then that because one works best over the highest densities of damage, it would therefore mitigate more across the whole fight, but that still leaves out two core factors:
First, a skill can have a higher maximum mitigation without having a higher total (such depends on the fight as a whole).
Second, as Ryaduera mentioned above, a typical party in any serious (and therefore 8-man) content has both types of mitigation, so small imbalances in which of two options (gear-scaled or content-scaled) would nullify slightly more damage over a whole fight are frequently overwhelmed by the available slight synergy in having both (being able to nullify more over both moderate and deep damage spikes, or stack both together without the anti-synergy of one source of GSmiti going partly to waste or of CSmiti being multiplicatively diminished by the first).
_______________
That said, damage taken isn't like Crit rates; it doesn't progressively increase (relative to tank HP) over the course of the expansion. As such, there is no more reason to frame this situation as "after a certain threshold, content-scaled mitigation is better" than "below a certain threshold, content-scaled mitigation is worse." It's not as if the situations in which the one with a higher floor and lower maximum will just be necessarily expunged over time.
While I'd still offer that Oblation should be stronger... agreed; though DRK has comparable mitigation, its total sustain (combined mitigation + healing, in practice -- not accounting for would-be healing where it'd be bottlenecked by... dying) is undertuned. And if we do not wish to give DRK absurdly more mitigation than other tanks, increasing its self-healing seems to be the way to go.
I have mixed feelings on this point.And TBN should give a stack of Dark Arts on break and on expiration. So many times I thought "Yeah this will break TBN" and it just didn't and I was like oops there goes 450 potency. I should not be punished for tanking too well.
Though each still aims to maximize sustain (including recovery possible... from just not dying, where that'd otherwise bottleneck it, or more efficient use of healing, etc)...
I think of (1) gear-scaled mitigation, (2) meaningfully duration-limited gear-scaled mitigation, and (3) TBN thus:
- No further constraints.
- Wants to just barely meet the break-even threshold, as not to waste nullification (so long as the delay in optimizing any single event doesn't cost it overall sustain).
- Same as above, but greatly increases the punishment for not meeting that threshold.
Admittedly, I kind of like that about TBN, and prefer that TBN has a bit of unique skill-gap element and consequent anti-synergy with other skills (not wanting to overlap it to such an extent that TBN won't be fully consumed), but the punishment is awfully steep for something that doesn't fundamentally change how the skill is meant to be deployed.
While I don't like the idea of removing that doubled punishment entirely --as I do find it unique, and a sufficient excuse to slightly overtune DRK's maximum sustain due to its likely in-practice losses-- I wouldn't mind seeing it reduced or TBN made just a tiny bit easier to pop (say, via a return to the Stormblood 12-second 20% TBN), especially if we're going to end up with another expansion of increasingly undertuned dungeons that progressively make TBN harder to consume, etc.



Reply With Quote





