Regarding Endgame DF and Tank Design

[Yagrush]

This idea is directed towards fights like Ifrit and Titan, where two tanks aren't actually required. In Ifrit's case, the only reason the two tanks are viable is because one is just a stun bot, while on Titan he is just being a gimped DPS. This means that one of the tanks ends up being a burden, which is bad design.

This idea is gonna assume that SE is gonna keep the rigid 2 Tanks, 4 DPS, and 2 Healers set-up for all of the DF encounters, and it's mostly directed at Warriors, since Paladins have something similar to this already.

Give Warriors a proper non-tank stance

Hear me out. I specifically say "Non-tank" stance rather than "dps stance", since the idea isn't to make Warriors match-up with other dps, but, rather, let them be less of a burden to DF parties when they aren't gonna actually be doing their main role (i.e. Tanking), and at least do sufficiently more damage than the main tank. This way, SE isn't pigeon-holed into ALWAYS looking to keep tanks busy, SPECIALLY when Crystal Tower comes out and you have 6 tanks going around.

You bet some of those tanks aren't gonna be tanking on some points, why not give them a tool to let them make a significant contribution to the raid, instead of leeching, doing trivial dps, while they wait for the moment to tank, if there is any?

Now to address some points:
-I'm aware Warrior has something that kind of tries to do this, Unchained, but, let's be honest, it does not the same job for Warrior like Sword Oath is for Paladin. It blows, should be buffed, or should be turned into a difference stance all-together. If this does happen, my issues would be mostly solved.

-Yes, I understand that this is dangerous in a way, since, if tank unbalances happen, like, say, Paladins are always preferred, there'd be even LESS reason to use Warriors as MTs, since they might aswell just stay doing average dps than being a mediocre tank. I understand that this can be an issue, but it can be fixed if Paladin + SO and Warrior + Unchained dps is well balanced. Also, the idea isn't to design encounters to take advantage of this new idea, but rather to have a back-up plan to fall on when SE designs an encounter where an OT isn't needed, but you still need to q with two tanks.

-There's also the issue that Tank classes inherently create more enmity than other classes due to the nature of their weaponskills, this could be easily fixed if mentioned stances nullified enmity bonuses from their weaponskills.

What is this trying solve?

When content gets harder, the community will value efficiency over everything else. If SE keeps designing encounters that only requires one tank, but the DF needs 2, you will have situations like Titan HM, where going with the DF you are guranteeing yourself 1 Tank, 4 dps, 2 healers, and 1 gimped dps, essentially, which is why many people will favor forming groups outside of random DF, looking only for 1 tank, making tank's chances of getting content done slimmer. This will only get worse when CT content gets harder and SE doesn't assure a reason for 6 tanks, or encounters that don't justify 2. In clearer words, encounters with DPS races that only requires 1 tank, but DF looks for 2 tanks, is bad design.


My two cents, feel free to critique or discuss these ideas. They are more than welcomed.

[Amyas]

Non-tank stance for Wars would be... not using defiance :P

Eh, and not use any Warrior ability in the process, Paladins don't need to do this, why should Warriors?

Wars can do substantial dps without defiance, and what abilities would we miss out on? Inner beast? Steel Cyclone? You can just pop defiance on, infuriate, use IB/SC, pop defiance off and continue dpsing away.

[Yagrush]

Non-tank stance for Wars would be... not using defiance :P

Eh, and not use any Warrior ability in the process, Paladins don't need to do this, why should Warriors?

Non-tank stance for Wars would be... not using defiance :P



Wars can do substantial dps without defiance, and what abilities would we miss out on? Inner beast? Steel Cyclone? You can just pop defiance on, infuriate, use IB/SC, pop defiance off and continue dpsing away.

Maybe if you're overgeared for the content. Also, if this were true, people wouldn't mind picking up a Warrior who isn't gonna tank into a Titan HM.. They aren't doing this.

[Gamemako]

This idea is directed towards fights like Ifrit and Titan, where two tanks aren't actually required. In Ifrit's case, the only reason the two tanks are viable is because one is just a stun bot, while on Titan he is just being a gimped DPS. This means that one of the tanks ends up being a burden, which is bad design.

Godsdammit. Say it with me now: WAR is not a DPS.

You see, PLD needs Sword Oath to be able to match WAR non-Defiance DPS. This is the reason for the existence of Sword Oath in the first place. Second, you've overestimated the difference between tank and DPS damage output -- it's 20-25%, not 70%. Compare WAR to DRG, and know that both have PGL and MRD abilities. The difference between the two is exactly 32 strength, then potency and ability considerations. End result is that DRG gets ~7-9% more damage from STR differences and another 10% or so out of greater potency on attacks, then the bonus off-GCD abilities. Additionally, WAR is already getting a buff to address some of the endgame struggles.

Maybe if you're overgeared for the content. Also, if this were true, people wouldn't mind picking up a Warrior who isn't gonna tank into a Titan HM.. They aren't doing this.

You're seriously demanding that a tank be a full-fledged DPS. That won't ever happen, obviously. However, you also have to realize that people often aren't doing things because they're just as easily confused as you are about the game's mechanics. Parties of 4 tanks have handily downed Titan -- take this thread, for example.

[Yagrush]

Godsdammit. Say it with me now: WAR is not a DPS.

You see, PLD needs Sword Oath to be able to match WAR non-Defiance DPS. This is the reason for the existence of Sword Oath in the first place. Second, you've overestimated the difference between tank and DPS damage output -- it's 20-25%, not 70%. Compare WAR to DRG, and know that both have PGL and MRD abilities. The difference between the two is exactly 32 strength, then potency and ability considerations. End result is that DRG gets ~7-9% more damage from STR differences and another 10% or so out of greater potency on attacks, then the bonus off-GCD abilities. Additionally, WAR is already getting a buff to address some of the endgame struggles.

Don't take my posts out of context. I'm specifically saying that encounters that the second tank IS NOT NEEDED, in the grand scheme of things, is what could've been a better dps, and among hardcore players would rather be efficient and take a 5th dps instead, which they are still doing.

Also, I don't have the math to back it up, but I really doubt Wars only do 7-9% less dps than a dps geared DRG who knows what he is doing, while you are geared for tanking. Gearing for dps as a tank, imo, defeats the purpose of having the DF allow 2 tanks into the queue.

[Gamemako]

No, I don't want them to be a full-fledged dps

Yes, you do. You're telling everyone that WAR can't ever tank, it needs a DPS stance to boost DPS, and that no party will take a tank as sub-par DPS, all in the same breath. You may prance around saying "but I didn't claim they needed to be like a DPS", but you created a scenario where the only possible suggestion is exactly what you disclaimed.

You're also assuming an overgear where none exists, once again. You're talking about a thread in which there are a bunch of WAR players who don't have better than Garuda weapons because they haven't successfully done Titan yet.

Don't take my posts out of context. I'm specifically saying that encounters that the second tank IS NOT NEEDED, in the grand scheme of things, is what could've been a better dps, and among hardcore players would rather be efficient and take a 5th dps instead, which they are still doing.

They're taking 6 DPS, actually, when a second healer isn't needed. When you make the assumption that everything has gone swimmingly, then you're always going to lose out to another DPS. You are never going to get people voluntarily taking another tank or healer when they can avoid it. Hell, people won't even take sub-par DPS characters.

[Amyas]

Maybe if you're overgeared for the content. Also, if this were true, people wouldn't mind picking up a Warrior who isn't gonna tank into a Titan HM.. They aren't doing this.

In many cases, an experienced party would not mind picking up a war for dps on titan, I actually had a few attempts as one yesterday (I really wanted to mt it though, so I only gave it around 4 tries before I let them find a *real* dd, maybe one that can actually dodge :P)

You lose the healing buff from wrath stacks. GG

Why on earth would you need the healing buff from defiance if you're not tanking? Don't know what kind of parties you've been in, but if you're a dd, you shouldn't be taking that much damage, if at all :3 I mean, even on titan as a war dps, you're easier to heal than a regular dps without defiance on, and you're always taking damage from stomps.

[Gooner_iBluAirJGR]

Non-tank stance for Wars would be... not using defiance :P



Wars can do substantial dps without defiance, and what abilities would we miss out on? Inner beast? Steel Cyclone? You can just pop defiance on, infuriate, use IB/SC, pop defiance off and continue dpsing away.

You lose the healing buff from wrath stacks. GG

[Ri_ri]

Make Paladins heal, then. Or else you'll still have the same problem if you get a group with two Paladins.
Using Sword Oath to attack as Paladin doesn't work, as you'll steal aggro from the main tank.

[Yagrush]

Make Paladins heal, then. Or else you'll still have the same problem if you get a group with two Paladins.
Using Sword Oath to attack as Paladin doesn't work, as you'll steal aggro from the main tank.

I don't understand your first point. Also, the second point is addressed in the OP.