Would tanks be okay if SE swapped the damage between tank and healers?

[AnjouMaaka]

That's literally asking SE to completely change how enmity works, on top of asking for what you are asking for. Enmity is partially based on how much damage is done. I don't know the exact math on it but I imagine it would probably be something along the lines of:

base enmity generation + % of damage done

Never mind the fact that the entire reason your healing is so "not fun" as described is because you still can't keep dark knights alive during wall to wall dungeon pulls to save your life when said healing is actually required, proving to Square Enix that it's still not safe to nerf warrior.

[Supersnow845]

That's literally asking SE to completely change how enmity works, on top of asking for what you are asking for. Enmity is partially based on how much damage is done. I don't know the exact math on it but I imagine it would probably be something along the lines of:

base enmity generation + % of damage done

Never mind the fact that the entire reason your healing is so "not fun" as described is because you still can't keep dark knights alive during wall to wall dungeon pulls to save your life when said healing is actually required, proving to Square Enix that it's still not safe to nerf warrior.

You don’t understand how tank stance works apparently

[AnjouMaaka]

You don’t understand how tank stance works apparently

I understand how tank stance works. I wouldn't be a tank main if I didn't. Tank stance simply states that it greatly enhances enmity generation. How tank stance boosts enmity generation isn't part of the equation here because my point is to show that the OP's suggestion is bad and poorly thought out. It fixes healer design at the cost of everyone else's fun. Even with tank stance, it would likely be a whole mess like what we had at the start of this expansion where they buffed tank enmity because even with tank stance, pictomancer's damage was affecting the % of damage done part of that equation too easily. If they have that much trouble getting enmity correct with things as is, you really want them to do what the OP is suggesting? Tanks won't be able to hold aggro at all.

[Supersnow845]

I understand how tank stance works. I wouldn't be a tank main if I didn't. Tank stance simply states that it greatly enhances enmity generation. How tank stance boosts enmity generation isn't part of the equation here because my point is to show that the OP's suggestion is bad and poorly thought out. It fixes healer design at the cost of everyone else's fun. Even with tank stance, it would likely be a whole mess like what we had at the start of this expansion where they buffed tank enmity because even with tank stance, pictomancer's damage was affecting the % of damage done part of that equation too easily. If they have that much trouble getting enmity correct with things as is, you really want them to do what the OP is suggesting? Tanks won't be able to hold aggro at all.

Pictomancers damage wasn’t messed up square just pandered to bad tanks who spent all of endwalker walking up and looking at the trash and getting agro, shockingly when a class has front loaded damage you actually have to group the trash and give them some damage before moving on. That’s not a flaw in angry generation that’s a flaw in people’s ability to tank. If you do half and AOE then run halfway across the map it’s not the Pictomancers fault if they rip agro.

Changing tanks and healer damage would do literally nothing to how ridiculously high tank agro generation is unless you are really really bad at tanking and are too used to EW’s design where you barely even tanked

Ironic coming from the person constantly preaching that tank sustain is the only defence poor tank mains have against the encroaching bad healing dictatorship or something

[Shurrikhan]

That's literally asking SE to completely change how enmity works, on top of asking for what you are asking for. Enmity is partially based on how much damage is done. I don't know the exact math on it but I imagine it would probably be something along the lines of:

base enmity generation + % of damage done

Never mind the fact that the entire reason your healing is so "not fun" as described is because you still can't keep dark knights alive during wall to wall dungeon pulls to save your life when said healing is actually required, proving to Square Enix that it's still not safe to nerf warrior.

There is a minute amount of additional enmity per action against an enemy or benefiting a player the enemies are engaged against. But by minute I mean the value of ~100 damage. Vs. the total amount done by, say, Xenoglossy.

The % of damage done is the far, far larger part, and --far more importantly-- it is modified by your Enmity stance's multiplier. The stance does not supply a mere flat value.

The % modifier amount they apparently thought was "too little" was 1000% enmity. Now it's higher with AoE openers having a further, multiplicatively stacking modifier atop that.

proving to Square Enix that it's still not safe to nerf warrior.

Then I suppose it's still not safe to have anything less than an 8-Warrior party?

And, most importantly...

That's literally asking SE to completely change how enmity works

No part of the OP asks, no matter how indirectly, for a change to how Enmity works.

We tanks have enough Enmity to spend more than 80% of our AoE time idle and still hold threat. In single target, that falls only to perhaps 70%. It's still tremendously excessive. A nerf of ~15% dps would in no way require a change to Enmity formulas or its surrounding systems. We'd still have an excess of, at minimum, some 300%.

[AnjouMaaka]

There is a minute amount of additional enmity per action against an enemy or benefiting a player the enemies are engaged against. But by minute I mean the value of ~100 damage. Vs. the total amount done by, say, Xenoglossy.

The % of damage done is the far, far larger part, and --far more importantly-- it is modified by your Enmity stance's multiplier. The stance does not supply a mere flat value.

The % modifier amount they apparently thought was "too little" was 1000% enmity. Now it's higher with AoE openers having a further, multiplicatively stacking modifier atop that.


Then I suppose it's still not safe to have anything less than an 8-Warrior party?

And, most importantly...

No part of the OP asks, no matter how indirectly, for a change to how Enmity works.

We tanks have enough Enmity to spend more than 80% of our AoE time idle and still hold threat. In single target, that falls only to perhaps 70%. It's still tremendously excessive. A nerf of ~15% dps would in no way require a change to Enmity formulas or its surrounding systems. We'd still have an excess of, at minimum, some 300%.

Like I said, I don't know the actual equation for it. I was just giving an example of how it could be formulated. What the OP is asking for ignores so many aspects of the game just to satisfy their "lack of fun" when playing healers. Enmity is only one of those aspects.

[AnjouMaaka]

Pictomancers damage wasn’t messed up square just pandered to bad tanks who spent all of endwalker walking up and looking at the trash and getting agro, shockingly when a class has front loaded damage you actually have to group the trash and give them some damage before moving on. That’s not a flaw in angry generation that’s a flaw in people’s ability to tank. If you do half and AOE then run halfway across the map it’s not the Pictomancers fault if they rip agro.

Changing tanks and healer damage would do literally nothing to how ridiculously high tank agro generation is unless you are really really bad at tanking and are too used to EW’s design where you barely even tanked

Ironic coming from the person constantly preaching that tank sustain is the only defence poor tank mains have against the encroaching bad healing dictatorship or something

I think you've lost the entire point of the thread just from reading that. Not my problem. They buffed enmity generation because of it. Get over it. Clearly not a skill issue if it got addressed by the devs.