Is there a way to keep tank stance on until I turn it off?

[Midareyukki]

Because it was an aside to the larger point of the thread. Your "maybe bring 'em back" seemed primarily an incidental nudge towards, so I kept my "please no" equally brief, with the reasoning expandable.

I literally quoted the whole of what is in bold[/B], i.e., all but your comment on Cleric Stance. I could address also why CS wasn't a big deal to emergency situations either, as all oGCDs at the time except Tetra used percentile healing anyways and was therefore unaffected by CS (and, w/o wasting cast progress, CS itself only delayed healing by 1 GCD more than starting an offensive cast would now), but that falls outside my main concern.

I'm not sure why you're treating my response as malignant. I simply used the HB feature for its intended purpose --concision in regard to the thread's point of focus, tangential details optional-- while briefly addressing my point of concern. I neither cherry-picked nor unfairly framed what you had written. I merely happened not to have read the later pages; while that means I would have potentially missed if/where you had since moved away from the ideas you put on page one, no one owes it to others to check the remainder of a thread in place of someone's editing a since-changed idea, so that seemed unnecessary.

I already gave you the answer as to why I "think your answer was malignant" (I don't, I just find it weird, bc it looks like I didn't think things through. Which... I did...). And I reiterate: because while you're saying it's "an aside to the larger point of the thread", the part that you hid was the exact same sentiment that you said. The thing that's otherwise visible is you disagreeing with the first half of the sentence... which the 2nd half contradicts anyway. It wasn't an aside at all, especially if you're then going to agree that it has problems :|

I'm not saying you're an evil witch out to get me Shurrikhan. I'm saying your formatting is weird :|
Because it's like you're making visible the stuff where you disagree, but the stuff that you then agree and show that I too took issue with gets hidden under spoilers.

The rest about Cleric stance was me not getting the wording, really. Because it sounded like you were saying "Well, after that you write stuff on Cleric", whereas no, I still wrote a fair bit past that before getting to Cleric Stance. Again, whole paragraph on tanks and all that.

Like, this really doesn't bother me. I know it looks like it, but that's just because I write a lot and have trouble condensing it. I'm just going "but why tho?", not "omg you jerk how could you!?"

There's no matter of potency or capacity affected, so it can only be a buff if the gameplay is improved. In that case, unless XIV were finally willing to actually make more than a table-entry mechanic out of enmity, the least cumbersome solution is likely to be the best. That's why I was concerned about seeing yet another "We could just bring back enmity combos" suggestion, however off-hand or "as example" it may have been. [/HB]

Hmm... I get what you're saying, but it's not really me calling it a "buff" in the sense that it increases anything, but more so like it's going to appear on your buff/debuff bar like procs and stuff like that. I don't know what else to call those it's those pentagon-shaped things that indicate something about your character is being modified. Maybe "aura" like you mention. Though You can argue that it increases aggro multipliers? But eh, whatever really.

And yeah, on the enmity stuff, that's my bad for sure. Because like... what else can we do to generate aggro without a tank stance? If not a "buff" or some modifier, it'd have to be something engaged in the gameplay, and the only thing that came to mind because of how it's historically been were the aggro combos.

Do other MMOs have other ways of getting aggro passively? As in, not through dealing damage\healing you?

...and on that note, how do we classify non-combat aggro skills like Provoke or old Flash? Stuff that generates aggro without dealing damage or healing you? And should those be looked into if the tank stance were to go away entirely, or would they be too cumbersome? Because Flash was done away with entirely, not even reworked into an OGCD.

It scales identically to, and only with, damage itself. Unless you're kicking a job for doing too little damage at pull now, neither would you kick it for dealing too little of something that scales directly and only with damage (e.g., enmity so long as you do not give the enmity modifier only to select GCD skills), nor be forced to pull with one job over another (since whoever Provokes is going to have threat regardless). Keep the aura as it is now, rather than on the main combo only, and there are no issues.

Yeah but that's the thing. Currently, DRK does the highest burst opener in the game, and it's so strong that it's even optimal for Astrologian to give cards to DRKs. Meaning if anyone wanted to pull but their co-tank was a DRK, it'd be better for the DRK to pull and provoke later. Which, given how fights are now being designed, you'll be provoking anyway, so you'd want DRK to pull all the time if they were around. At least that's how it was like back then and why I assume it'd happen again if that were introduced. The ones that did the most aggro opened the fight, regardless of whether the tank was actually good or not. Even if WAR did better than DRK, if its opener wasn't what pushed the numbers up, DRKs would still be told to open the fight.

I'm not saying that that should matter, just that that was my experience with raiding before. If you did the most at the start, you opened, not me.