[Discuss] Bringing back mitigation-damage interaction

[Shurrikhan]

Being able to trade opportunity between sustain and damage requires only that: an ability to make that trade.

That could, but needn't necessarily, include stances. That could, but needn't necessarily, include shared resource costs (e.g., Inner Beast vs. Fell Cleave). Hell, it could boil down to little more than timing, wherein if you use a nuke from the front of a boss, part of your would-be damage is instead spent to reduce the damage prepared by their incoming attack.

All of which... is separate from Enmity, so I'm not sure why that's entering the picture here. And I certainly don't want to see a return of actions like Diversion as it was in Stormblood.

_______

DAILY CAP EDIT:

This is why any action where you have to choose between a defensive benefit or an offensive benefit will always come out on the offensive side, unless the defensive side is required to survive, but then it isn't really a choice as you are forced into it.

We will always choose, within given constraints, whatever produces the most long-term throughput (i.e., whatever value clears the fight). But that does not mean the tank's offensive choice will always be the best choice regardless of incoming damage, even when that damage wouldn't kill them.

The crux is that the equation for solving best rDPS doesn't involve only the tank; it also involves their healer(s). If healers, for instance, had less of their total (both offensive and curative) ppm locked into healing CDs and instead had greater potency-per-GCD (which they could then choose to use as they see fit), then a defensive resource spent to afford a healer 400 extra offensive relative-potency (a Dosis III even now is 429 relative potency, due to Healer's +30% damage trait) by spending one fewer GCD heal on you is going to be worth more than doing an extra 300 relative-potency of damage yourself.