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

[Shurrikhan]

Okay, why spoiler that though?

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.

And no? I wrote a fair bit before getting into Cleric Stance.

They could bring back aggro combos. DRKs have been asking for their old finisher for years. The issue is that then people might end up easily competing for Aggro (not that it doesn't happen nowadays...), and people will hard-focus DPS instead of grabbing aggro. But honestly, while not perfect, I did like the system they had in Stormblood. Especially with stuff like Diversion, which forced the DPS to also have some responsability when it came to group content. But given the way the game's designed now and their philosophy, I understand why it's no longer the case. Seems to me they want a pick-up-and-play style rather than having to rely on team effort.
And Cleric was removed because healers were healing less while the buff was up, which led to unfortunate issues during emergency situations...

I literally quoted the whole of what is in bold, 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 mean, at the end of the day, it's still going to be a buff.

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.

Yeah but won't that also end up causing that "DRK, you do more than I do, both in APM and in damage, you pull" scenarios?

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.

[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.

[Shurrikhan]

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.

No, you got the wording. But that was my point: I literally quoted in full your "whole paragraph on tanks and all that."

They could bring back aggro combos.

DRKs have been asking for their old finisher for years.

The issue is that then people might end up easily competing for Aggro (not that it doesn't happen nowadays...), and people will hard-focus DPS instead of grabbing aggro.

But honestly, while not perfect, I did like the system they had in Stormblood. Especially with stuff like Diversion, which forced the DPS to also have some responsibility when it came to group content. But given the way the game's designed now and their philosophy, I understand why it's no longer the case. Seems to me they want a pick-up-and-play style rather than having to rely on team effort.

There are no words added, removed, nor reordered from...

They could bring back aggro combos. DRKs have been asking for their old finisher for years. The issue is that then people might end up easily competing for Aggro (not that it doesn't happen nowadays...), and people will hard-focus DPS instead of grabbing aggro. But honestly, while not perfect, I did like the system they had in Stormblood. Especially with stuff like Diversion, which forced the DPS to also have some responsability when it came to group content. But given the way the game's designed now and their philosophy, I understand why it's no longer the case. Seems to me they want a pick-up-and-play style rather than having to rely on team effort.

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.

Yes. That was my intent in providing the details/warrant there -- to follow and elaborate upon the claim made.

The thing that's otherwise visible is you disagreeing with the first half of the sentence... which the 2nd half contradicts anyway.

The entire sentence was quoted. Nor did any of your later sentences within your paragraph, every one of which was quoted, contradict your first sentence. I do not understand how you expect that I have skewed your meaning through the organization of said quotes.

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.

An aura is any ongoing modifier. Those can be buffs, debuffs, or essentially neither. The term is a bit more muddled because "aura" can also refer to a style of snapshotting or of handling duration, a subset usually of buffs. These are the effects for which no duration is shown and simply last until the most recent server tick does not detect a given condition. Because tank stances have no cap to their durations, but appear on the buff bar, they may often be called either "buffs" or "auras" (or just "stances" because in most games 'stances' have no duration cap).

Now, per the example that led us here, if you were to remove the tank stance and simply grant the bonus enmity as an extension of Tank Mastery (and/or other ubiquitous undermechanics), that'd usually be called an "aura" because it would not appear on the buff bar. (A debuff can also be an aura, but there are very few examples, an

Does this clarify the typical terminology?

Auras (aka [Status] Effects)

Buffs

Auras [Beneficial] (aka Dynamic-Conditional (Buffs)

Debuffs

Auras [Harmful] (aka Dynamic-Conditional (Debuffs)

<More on the enmity stuff after the Spoiler block.>

but the stuff that you then agree and show that I too took issue with gets hidden under spoilers.

You seem to be under the impression that I disproportionately focused my quick summary on our points in contrast, hiding our points in agreement. That's not possible for a very simple reason: I also happened to disagree with the content of every quote included in that block (your "whole paragraph on tanks and all that"). Else I would have simply ended with "On the rest, agreed," and reconciled our viewpoints from there.

You suggest(ed) that aggro combos might be a route at least worth examining; I disagree(d), because enmity is rather unrewarding system to "manage" and high-enmity variant skills are notoriously inefficient (bloated) ways to interact with that system, regardless.
You implied(ed) that such is a significant reason for DRK's wanting back Power Slash; I disagree(d), because it's a non-factor in that desire, which stems instead from a want for greater rotational complexity and GCD- and/or VFX-diversity.
You suggest(ed) that one issue possible for enmity combos was people hard-focusing DPS over grabbing aggro; I disagree(d), because it hasn't been.
You suggest(ed) that Diversion and similar manipulars had some redeeming merit; I disagree(d), for the multiple reasons I then stated. I do not feel that Diversion entailed "team-effort" nor that moving away from its bloat entails, in itself, wanting more "a pick-up-and-play style."

I cannot have hidden away the agreement, showing only the contrast, when there was no agreement.

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.

Fair, fair. I restate my quick "least-cumbersome" spitball solutions again at the end of this post, but let me know if I've left anything too unclear.

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.

So, that gets a little complicated.

First, Flash didn't apply enmity directly / as a discrete application... not quite, iirc. All (de)buff events provide some (negligible -- like, 70 damage worth back at level 50) amount of enmity based on player level (which is why, in tank stance, just popping a few of buffs could offset aggro lost to a Regen tick or the like). Iirc, Flash just had a massive enmity modifier on that generic debuff event.

Now, why was Flash removed? I suspect that has equal parts to do with player dislike for bloat (since PLD was finally given AoE damage in Total Eclipse --and then Prominence, to boot-- and that AoE damage obviously applies enmity anyways) and dislike (players' and/or devs') for RNG-based defense. Technically, it wouldn't really have a term of its own, I think, but functionally, we could just call it a "Pure Enmity" or "Threat-Only" skill. Well, except of course that it wasn't just that; it was also a defensive AoE debuff.

Flash applied Blind, a flat Accuracy reduction. I suspect Accuracy still exists under the hood (just at a set amount per level, with raid bosses using just their expansion's level cap value), but if not, that would already have necessitated its death. Assuming Accuracy does still exist, though, the effect was often considered a bit unintuitive, as it was difficult to gauge just how much mitigation one was getting out of it (I usually found it a little less valuable than Dark Arts->Dark Dance, though I think the Blind effects given by DA-DP and Flash were identical). I kind of liked it in that it acted like a multi-charge CD of diminishing returns (even if a costly one, given damage loss), but I can see why most, especially with the removal of TP, wouldn't have wanted to touch it anyways.

Now, Provoke. For the longest time, Provoke simply set enmity to the highest enmity on the target's threat table and then added 1 atop it. This is what's classically just a "Taunt" at this point, or a "Match +1". It's the truly unique one.

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.

Let's pick a frame of reference here.

Are we using the lasting Provoke modifier already mentioned? If so, that's going to be irrelevant unless DRK is doing at least double (or 3, 4x) the burst of other tanks.
Are we using the positional modifiers given as example? If so, that's going to be irrelevant unless, at the earlier spitball tuning, DRK is doing at least double the burst of other tanks.

Again, my example back there used both as premise: Enmity in general would be affected by relative positioning (hitting an enemy from the front would apply twice the enmity of hitting from the back, tanks would have some 5x enmity by default, and Provoke would have a larger overhead and a declining bump to enmity rate). Under the premises given, I don't see how it'd be an issue (let alone leave any problem that'd require enmity combos to be solved even if one were willing to sacrifice the damage to deal with that problem so inefficiently)?

Finally, though, I have to wonder if it'd even matter? Every tank has nearly, if not equal, off-tanking mitigation as main-tanking mitigation, at this point. So what would be the harm, anyways, of DRK pulling? Are we assuming that the MT-OT position parity forces an undesirable job kit constraint and would like to free ourselves of that however we can? I'm just wondering what's at risk here, even if just tangentially.

[SassyAssassin]

Unrelated but I remember having a giant aura male tank who would turn his stance off each time his health got at half haha

[Shurrikhan]

Unrelated but I remember having a giant aura male tank who would turn his stance off each time his health got at half haha

I had to teach a DRK how to drop aggro once so we could 3-man the dungeon (Paglathan or w/e) w/o a healer (DRK-MNK-DRG), haha.

He kept pulling off of us before our own mitigation and self-sustain had been used up and then holding onto it for too long for us to save him. We'd finish off the packs w/o either of us quite dropping too, but we could have all stayed alive. Eventually he got the hang of it and no more deaths from there, at least.