Mitigation types

[BabyYoda]

As in there is one correct mitigation type for a given attack? I like having some amount of ambiguity, it allows for some creativity and can potentially make situations more dynamic. If instead you want each mitigation type to have meaning advantages over others then I can agree with that, although I don't find the current mix of options too bad right now.

Shields can block debuffs and I think this should be used more often in content. They can also be applied proactively while heals can't without losing some of their effectiveness and in the few cases of attacks that directly subtract HP, shields are unaffected and very effective at reducing risk when HP is initially reduced. Reducing damage received and increasing defense are the same thing, but they differ from shields in that they can't be consumed, ie they will have an effect for as long as they are active, yet they don't lose effectiveness from being cast early like heals (unless they are needed to mitigate a long series of attacks) and importantly they don't contribute to overheal. That last trait is one of the reasons why I think tank healing should be far less than healer healing, even with overpowered mitigation (which should not exist) heals would at least still have some purpose, while overpowered tank healing leaves no room for external heals as it becomes overheal.

So the current defense system has a good foundation. What we need in my opinion are encounters to make the most of it and of course a balancing of abilities to allow defense and healing to feel interesting.

I agree current design lack of reactiveness.. tactical choices.. when actually to use shield over mitigation? If you are a math bro you can calculate X% mitigation = xxx shield which is not what I would see interesting..

If there is 3 different attack types thta healer and tanks can manage with their mitigations to get 50% extra effectivness over others that would be cool to see

[Mikey_R]

If different tanks could mitigate different types of more effectively than others, you restrict the number of tanks you would take into the content. Why should you work harder to keep one tank alive when another does the job better? As Jeeqbit has already stated, this is what happened in HW. You could make it so the differences aren't as noticeable, but then you have lost that uniqueness of the tanks you were trying to create in the first place.

If we imagine all tanks has separate mitigation for different damage types, you necessarily limit how you deal with the damage. You must use this mitigation for this attacks, as opposed to using whatever you want. You necessarily limit creativity in how you mitigate the damage. With mitigations being more universal, you can adjust your mitigations around more variables, like healers, making better use of their kits.

I agree current design lack of reactiveness.. tactical choices.. when actually to use shield over mitigation?

And, just to point out, Reactiveness and tactical choices are different. Reactiveness involves seeing what is happening and reacting to it on the fly, tactical choices, on the other hand, rely on you mapping things out in advance. You know how you are mitigating damage and the order you do things in. The 2 literally cannot exist together. Even if you add RNG, it is just a case of scenario A, do this, Scenario B, do this other thing. It has been reduced to a tactical choice.

[Mikey_R]

I feel like different type of attacks can be more effective against specific type of mitigation would solve multiple problems:

When I say multiple attacks means 2 things: Raid-wide attacks, Tank busters.

Already went over this, had a feeling it had been skipped over though:

If different tanks could mitigate different types of more effectively than others, you restrict the number of tanks you would take into the content. Why should you work harder to keep one tank alive when another does the job better? As Jeeqbit has already stated, this is what happened in HW. You could make it so the differences aren't as noticeable, but then you have lost that uniqueness of the tanks you were trying to create in the first place.

If we imagine all tanks has separate mitigation for different damage types, you necessarily limit how you deal with the damage. You must use this mitigation for this attack, as opposed to using whatever you want. You necessarily limit creativity in how you mitigate the damage. With mitigations being more universal, you can adjust your mitigations around more variables, like healers, making better use of their kits.

In short, you give tanks more things to mitigate with freedom in how to mitigate it rather than restricting their mitigation usefulness and forcing them into a specific pattern.

It is also worth noting that blocking is exclusive to PLD because of the shield, every tank has Parry as another form of passive mitigation. Functionally, they are just damage mitigations though, no different from the damage mitigation from Rampart or Guardian etc.

[BabyYoda]

When I say multiple attacks means 2 things: Raid-wide attacks, Tank busters.

Already went over this, had a feeling it had been skipped over though:



In short, you give tanks more things to mitigate with freedom in how to mitigate it rather than restricting their mitigation usefulness and forcing them into a specific pattern.

It is also worth noting that blocking is exclusive to PLD because of the shield, every tank has Parry as another form of passive mitigation. Functionally, they are just damage mitigations though, no different from the damage mitigation from Rampart or Guardian etc.

I didn't invent anything.. this is already in the game.
DRK has the ability to mitigate magic attacks better than PLD which if fine if all tanks designed around this kind of mechanic.

currently it is half baked or even lower than that.. warrior has highest healing while there is no attacks counter the healing part of warrior.. but dark knight has a counter to magic attacks.

system is half baked and shows how unbalance tanks are in different encounters