Quote Originally Posted by gllt View Post
You don't have to prove that difference to me, I'm not sure what your point is. I agree? If it's 10-15 burn it down unless the rest of the party really objects for some reason, otherwise if it's something absurd like 60.. don't, unless the party asks you to, then go for it.
I think the issue is more "what happens in the grey areas"? What if it's at 18-20%? That's above 15%, but far away from 60%. Where does the proverbial line get drawn?

"Maybe more normal content should have enrages" == "I want ultimate level DPS checks in ARR leveling dungeons I am an elitist who hates all these scrub idiot baby players who can't git gud"

Something like that, at least that's what it always feels like
Yeah, I get that sense, too. I'd have to say, though, when people use the phrase "hard enrage," by its nature it feels like it implies a significant skill check. Some people in this thread are calling for something like a 15-minute enrage on a 5-minute fight...doesn't feel like a "hard enrage" when it's never going to happen, so why even bother becomes the thought. If you're going to add it, it implies it would be meaningful and thus could definitely affect average players.

Personally, I'd say if the goal is preventing a tank from just solo'ing a boss from an absurd amount of health, aside from the obvious adjusting of tank mitigation and self-sustain, another option could be to have bosses automatically give themselves a significant buff that stacks if only one player in the party is left alive (or perhaps two people in an 8-man setting). Make it so a tank could still reasonably finish a boss off if it's HP is already low, but soon enough overwhelm and one-shot the tank if it's not already close to death. (Basically, a soft enrage when most of the raid is dead.)