Enmity Management, Do we want it back?

[Lyth]

Imagine if every subject's relevancy was tied to the time they were posted.

True, this topic has always been a bad idea every time it comes up, so I suppose the relevancy hasn't changed over time. I was just pointing out that this was force bumped along with several other ancient threads, likely to move discussion away from WAR nerfs, in case you missed it.

[Mikey_R]

Could pose some other problems though, like tanks getting punished to spam enmity combos if one party member just happens to crit a lot.

The whole thing was more of a punishment for tanks, especially when there are several things that are outside of the tank's control. I have made several posts in this very topic about the issues posed by the old stance system. This post in particular I look at specifically how do you actually balance the enmity gain with DPS and how the gear level and skill levels of the tanks compared to the DPS affects this balance.

I know you have no experience with the old stance systems, however, it never worked how you are potentially envisioning it.

[Sazuzaki]

The whole thing was more of a punishment for tanks, especially when there are several things that are outside of the tank's control. I have made several posts in this very topic about the issues posed by the old stance system. This post in particular I look at specifically how do you actually balance the enmity gain with DPS and how the gear level and skill levels of the tanks compared to the DPS affects this balance.

I know you have no experience with the old stance systems, however, it never worked how you are potentially envisioning it.

Well it's not really me envisioning the old system, more of me envisioning how a new system could work. Valence already corrected me on what I thought stances were, and I was just talking about what a revised form could be. It's really nothing but a loose idea and personal preference of mine and not exactly how I thought the old system was like.

Based off what I've seen, aggro management always looked like a mixed bag. It was janky, but there are people who loved and hated that jank. Nonetheless, I personally think gutting and replacing it with what we have now was a bad decision. If we got a fun revised aggro system that still came with some of the jank you mentioned in the post you linked, I honestly wouldn't mind that if it meant abandoning the current aggro system. But that's just how I personally feel, and it's not like it's going to be added to the game. I just like the idea of a system that makes me feel like I'm actively protecting my party, but I could fail if I'm not aware of the different factors that play into it.

[Supersnow845]

The whole thing was more of a punishment for tanks, especially when there are several things that are outside of the tank's control. I have made several posts in this very topic about the issues posed by the old stance system. This post in particular I look at specifically how do you actually balance the enmity gain with DPS and how the gear level and skill levels of the tanks compared to the DPS affects this balance.

I know you have no experience with the old stance systems, however, it never worked how you are potentially envisioning it.

Supports benefitting or being punished for the performance of the others in their role in how these classes should work, just as how the DPSare punished by being bonked if they don’t press quelling strikes

I really don’t understand what the obsession with a full party being 8 people who don’t interact at all with each other and all just vaguely wail on the same boss is

As a support I actively want to be punished if my party is garbage, it’s how I can show my skill that I can pull a bad party back

[Vallerie]

Generally speaking, if we were to receive changes to moment-to-moment tank gameplay, I would rather it target mitigation personally. Have us use our offensive rotation to either build resource or reduce cooldowns of a short (5-10s duration) DCD that we are expected to have up 50-70% of the time while actively taking damage. Increase passive tank damage taken to compensate, or just remove the passive damage reduction on tank mastery.

Technically, PLD and DRK are already most of the way there with Sheltron and TBN respectively, just WAR and GNB would need their short CDs to be more than just be flat 25s CD, and of course have it be necessity to use them for more than just tank busters.

I am basically thinking how active mitigation works in WoW.

[Valence]

this topic has always been a bad idea every time it comes up

Speak for yourself, it's the first time I see that thread and I like it.

The whole thing was more of a punishment for tanks, especially when there are several things that are outside of the tank's control. I have made several posts in this very topic about the issues posed by the old stance system. This post in particular I look at specifically how do you actually balance the enmity gain with DPS and how the gear level and skill levels of the tanks compared to the DPS affects this balance.

I know you have no experience with the old stance systems, however, it never worked how you are potentially envisioning it.

Having played in HW with it, I have experience and I can tell you that I completely disagree with your statement. The enmity generation brought by the aggro combo had such an insanely high margin that keeping aggro was rarely a problem for multiple reasons:

1) Good players knew that they just had to do more of the aggro combo not to lose aggro. If aggro was lost out of greed, it wasn't that big of a problem, provoke and immediately add aggro back on top with the aggro combo or the ranged attack.
2) Casual players mostly all played under tank stance spamming the aggro combo, and therefore never lost aggro. The ones that lost it were clueless tanks.

It sure was a problem in alliance raids because there was no way to properly monitor the aggro levels of other alliances but that's also a problem today for the same UI reasons.

Supports benefitting or being punished for the performance of the others in their role in how these classes should work, just as how the DPSare punished by being bonked if they don’t press quelling strikes

I really don’t understand what the obsession with a full party being 8 people who don’t interact at all with each other and all just vaguely wail on the same boss is

As a support I actively want to be punished if my party is garbage, it’s how I can show my skill that I can pull a bad party back

My hot take on this (I'm using "you" as a rhetorical "you", definitely not pointing fingers to you in particular since I 100% agree):

It's the same age old "I'm a good player, and all other players are bad and there is a high chance they screw me over by not managing aggro properly".

Next they're gonna complain that they hate bad healers because they can't keep the party alive. What do we do then? We remove healing entirely (already close to it anyway)? That way we can truly get the utopian solo gameplay within a party of 7 other strangers all doing their thing without any interactions that we all wished so hard for.

And then (slippery slope on my behalf incoming), they'll complain that if somebody in the party fails a mechanic and wipes the party, then it's no fair and other players shouldn't affect MY part when they're being BAD.

Some people are good and some are bad. Deal with it, and if you're not able to, then don't play online games with strangers, or play exclusively with your group of tryhard friends. And who knows, if they're all that good, then maybe actually pulling out more intricate and rewarding battle mechanics could be... rewarding right?

[Burmecia]

Yes.
That's all.
Have a goof day.

[Lyth]

...

In Heavensward raid content, tank stance was not a skill check. The only thing that really mattered was the initial enmity gain, after which you were unlikely to lose aggro. NIN's Shadewalker/Smokebomb was one approach to circumvent stance use. WAR's Unchained was another alternative.

The simple act of turning off tank stance and leaving it off for the encounter automatically put you in the top 30% of players, even if you felt like just spamming your enmity move. Strength gear gave you an even bigger advantage. This was a knowledge check, and nothing more. The only reason why some people remember it fondly was because it was an easy way to artificially boost your performance and gate out players who didn't have the game knowledge that you did. It was not interesting, and it added nothing to gameplay.

Cleric stance was a similar situation, except replace 30% with 10%. Healers were still at a point where they were engaged in philosophical debates about whether dps was a part of the role or not, so just putting up your DoTs under Cleric stance made you a top performer. Bonus points if you had your co-healer take turns solo healing and taking all the responsibility so that you could stay in Cleric stance for the whole fight and play a low effort Caster.

No. There are ways to make tanks more team orientated, and part of that comes back to reintroducing positioning responsibilities, cleaves that you have to direct away from the party, and damage variability. If you were arguing in favor of snap mitigation (i.e. adds spawn to eat your healers), then you might have a point. But standard tank stance in a fight where you establish your lead and just dps? Nah.

[Valence]

Yes and pressing your buttons to do a rotation isn't a skill check either, it's a knowledge check. Clearing a fight isn't a skill check, it's a memory check.

What do you think those are?

[Moqi]

I want aggro management for healers. Aggro is itself isn't very interesting and I'm fine with the way it is for Tanks and DPS, but since they gutted MP managment from Healers, I want overhealing to generate massive amount of aggro so we can at least have something to watch out for. And I want all healbots decimated.