Tank Balance

[Alphras]

What would be a mitigation mechanic that is fun and somewhat challenging for example? Outside of certain action oriented games with active blocking/dodging I have yet to see one.

Maximizing damage additionally to mitigation at least increases the low skill ceiling that comes with tanking imo.

[NFaelivrin]

While we're here discussing tank balance it seems the only issue devs see in it based on interviews is aggro issues. Hopefully that's not the full extent of tank changes we can expect in 3.1 or its gonna be really depressing.

[Whiston]

While we're here discussing tank balance it seems the only issue devs see in it based on interviews is aggro issues. Hopefully that's not the full extent of tank changes we can expect in 3.1 or its gonna be really depressing.

I fully agree.

They really need to look at PLD and DRK tp costs.
Then they'll have the issues with each class resolved properly.

[Sapphidia]

Carbonx has a good point.

Threat and Damage are interlinked but in an annoyingly exponential way. For Paladins and Dark Knights, the threat combo they have (Halone or Power Slash) is the lowest potency combo, so they ideally want to do it as little as possible to max their DPS. Dark Knights have more potency and threat on theirs, so a Dark Knight might need to only open with a single power slash combo, a PLD might need to do two halones before they're comfy with a lead (depending on if you have a ninja, party dps etc).

The more DPS you do, the more inherant threat you put out and thus the less you need to rely on threat combos. You only need to do as much threat as 1 greater than the highest threat DPS in the raid, and Bonus Enmity only exists as a way to shore up the difference between your -actual- dps and their actual dps. The more dps you do, the less you need to rely on bonus enmity moves/stances to keep yourself above the dpsers.

Paladins do slightly less DPS when tanking than the other two classes, and thus need to use their threat combo slightly more on average. Their threat combo is also weaker, lower potency, lower threat and has a proportionally much bigger potency loss compared to other tanks when they could have done a Royal Authority combo instead (a PLD loses 80 potency when forced to do a Halone instead of a Royal. A DRK loses 10 potency when forced to do a Power Slash instead of a Delirium. In contrast a Warrior's Butcher combo is 20 potency more than their Storms Eye).

In contrast, not only does the Warrior do more damage naturally, but the Warrior's threat rotation (Butchers) is actually their highest potency combo and thus they WANT to do it lots. The Alternating Eye/Butchers combo means that when doing their max dps rotation they're also putting out far more threat than a Paladin doing Goring/Royal/Royal.

This is part of why there's such a big gap between dps values in practise. It's not that Paladins and Dark Knights have trouble holding threat, they don't. It's just in order to -really- minmax their DPS they sacrifice far more threat than a Warrior would. The optimal paladin rotation for dps is Goring/Royal/Royal whilst in Sword Oath, and this will NEVER hold threat off a well geared DPS doing their maximum rotation without either a.) a Ninja for threat transfer or b.) a comfortable threat lead. By reducing the requirements for that comfortable threat lead, you're technically pushing up the potential DPS ceiling for PLDs and DRKs, and bringing them a little closer to WARs.

Imagine if Royal Authority had a 5.5x enmity modifier. Halone would never be used other than as a mitigation tool to apply Str down. Paladins would be able to open pulls in Sword Oath even without a ninja, and never lose threat to anything whilst doing their max dps rotation. I'm not sure this is necessarily what we want as it takes away the skill of playing the class a bit, but it does highlight how increasing threat values can potentially increase their practical MT dps significantly.

[carbonx]

Sapphidia basically explained my point in different view, but it also brings up the interesting question of why Paladin's DPS is so low comparatively.

As I stated earlier in the thread, PLD is the only class without an ability that directly counteracts the damage penalty brought on by remaining in their tank stance. DRK has Darkside, WAR has Unchained and IB. Paladin technically has FoF, but it neither ignores the damage penalty or has close to full uptime. So, before you even get into combo potencies, PLD is already at a disadvantage in damage. This problem with DPS output is only reflected in their struggle for enmity generation.

They are forced into using Halone, lowering their DPS more. SE is currently trying to justify this unbalance in DPS through the use of party support skills, but ultimately, is it enough to warrant the loss of DPS inherent to bringing a PLD?

[Phoenicia]

..DRK has Darkside, WAR has Unchained and IB.

Just wanted to point out WAR's Defiance penalty reducing effect are not Unchained and IB, it's Maim. Grit + Darkside puts DRK at 92% of base unbuffed damage, Defiance + Maim puts WAR at 90% of base damage. Unchained is more akin to FoF (33% up by ignoring the 25% penalty for 20s). IB/SC ignoring the damage is not enough to offset the penalty. All wrath spenders causing WAR to ignore defiance penalty is just the icing on the cake.

[Nektulos-Tuor]

=D

There is never a way to ignore the damage penalty.

It is always full damage - 20%.

130% damage - 20% = 104% normal damage.

120% damage - 20%. = 96% normal damage.

115% damage - 20% = 92% normal damage.

100% damage - 20%. = 80%.

The 20% from maim for example is really only 16% more damage. The 15% is really only 12%.

[carbonx]

There is never a way to ignore the damage penalty.

Unchained: Nullifies the damage penalty inflicted by Defiance for 20s.

Inner Beast: Delivers an attack with a potency of 300.
Ignores the 25% damage penalty inflicted by Defiance.

Just saying.

[Phoenicia]

There is never a way to ignore the damage penalty.

Snip.

You two are arguing simantics, lol. You both are correct.

What Carbonx is trying to say is that WAR and DRK have ways to "mitigate" the damage penalty of their tank stances while PLD doesn't. It doesn't have to be completely negated, or otherwise, "ignored" to be considered mitigated.

A more correct way to look at it is to say that DRK and WAR have constant damage buffs to increase their base damage while PLD doesn't. PLD's offensive stance damage comes entirely from the stance itself.

But as long as, while in a tank stance, you do not get the full benefit of your damage had you not been in said stance, you are not completely "ignoring" it. Defiance + Maim is still less damage than no defiance and Maim.

And again, Defiance WAR deals more damage than Shield Oath PLD because of Maim, not Unchained. Unchained is just the icing on the cake. We could argue WAR deals more MT damage than DRK because of Unchained.

[Ladon]

There is never a way to ignore the damage penalty.

It is always full damage - 20%.

130% damage - 20% = 104% normal damage.

120% damage - 20%. = 96% normal damage.

115% damage - 20% = 92% normal damage.

100% damage - 20%. = 80%.

The 20% from maim for example is really only 16% more damage. The 15% is really only 12%.

I'm pretty sure this isn't right.

Damage enhancements and reductions seem to be additive, not multiplicative(at least that's what the formulas here are pointing to currently though it's still difficult to determine exactly because of the complexity of the damage formula chain) where mitigation skills are multiplicative.

That means for example if you are at 100% damage + 15% Darkside - 20% from Grit, your effective damage is 95%.

However if you stack Sword oath + Rampart + Sentinel the mitigation is multiplicative at 68.9% mitigation.