3.1 PLD Changes

[Ashkendor]

The only reason they would prefer the "tanky" one would be if the encounter NEEDS that extra tankyness, making the other tankclasses useless for that encounter.

Exactly! Making it so that only a PLD can survive a mechanic just exchanges one problem for another and doesn't solve anything. A guaranteed slot in raids is not what most of us are after here. We just want PLD to be a viable choice. With their continued refusal to improve PLD DPS to make us competitive, I feel like the devs are just seriously out of touch with the meta they've created.

Or maybe they just have huge plans to completely change the meta in 3.2, but that's a whole other can of worms...

[Brian_]

I feel that the devs current view on the tanking classes is unrealistic as a whole.

Having one tanking class be the "dpsy" one and another being the more "tanky" one sounds great in theory, but it doesn't work in reality. Why? Because the vast majority of players will always prefer the "dpsy" one, as it makes fights quicker. The only reason they would prefer the "tanky" one would be if the encounter NEEDS that extra tankyness, making the other tankclasses useless for that encounter. This situation makes balancing the tanks realisticly impossible.

The only real way of balancing the classes would be for them to have the same damage output and survivability, but having different playstyles. Making one class do more damage will make that class prefered in basicly all content, unless it can't survive it, which would lead to the class suddenly being useless.

This is a really extreme and shallow approach to the issue. It lacks so much nuance it might as well be incorrect.

Their view on tanking classes isn't unrealistic. You could make the argument that encounters are just not tuned or designed correctly. When they say they're looking to change the encounters rather than change the classes, while I don't trust that they'll get the tuning right based on their history, it's an understandable way to approach the issue.

A lot of people spout out the idea that the best mitigation is more DPS. Since you kill something faster, you take less damage. That is a simplification of the truth and it's so simplified it might as well be false.

Here is the actual reality of what raiders deal with and why it's a nuanced issue --

There is no such thing as too much tank survivability out of context. It's always good for a tank to have more eHP.

The issue is understanding things in context.

Some MMOs have consistent eHP checks through higher tank damage intake and healer MP strain. If there is a constant stream of significant damage or unpredictable burst, then having high persistent eHP matters more. If you have higher eHP, it allows healers to be more MP efficient when healing you since less of their healing will be potential over healing.

The thing is FFXIV is the complete opposite of that. General tank damage intake is very forgiving and there isn't much unpredictable burst. The base eHP benchmark is low and we're given a lot of essentially over-powered eHP boosters to push ourselves to safety range for the predictable burst. Due to the nature of damage intake, healers have a much easier time being proactive rather than reactionary with their heals and can better plan out overall MP usage. Healers also have a lot of MP recovery mechanics as well as a raid battery.

Add that to a raid design mentality which forces you to optimize for DPS, and you get the current situation where tanks are dropping eHP they don't need to survive in order to clear DPS checks.

Normally, having more eHP allows for a larger buffer and margin of error. Because of encounter tuning in FFXIV, the added DPS does so more efficiently because of the design of mechanics. Take A3S for example -- Digi passing went wrong and someone who shouldn't have damage down has it? Someone accidently attacked the wrong hand for too long during equal concentration? Accidentally had someone die to tether AoE? RNG screwed you and linked your DPS in ferro-fluid every time for add phase? Mistimed a stun on a piston? Heavy effects constantly missing? Messed up a ferro-fluid and now have 2 people with atrophy? Accidentally had the limb clip through a puddle? Something went wrong and you can't rely on LB to either kill limb or nuke the boss? Normally, these would all likely wipe your party due to the drop off in DPS contribution. But, with enough raid DPS, they are recoverable mistakes.

On the flip side, there aren't that many mistakes that will punish a tank for not having enough persistent eHP. Having more eHP doesn't bail you out of many situations, either.

The balance between the two tanking archetypes exists within the tuning and design of the encounter. Currently, there is an imbalance in how impactful the two elements are on overall raid margins. You need to tune it properly so that the advantages of being tankier or having more utility are actually comparable to having more raid DPS.

Whether or not PLD is tankier or offers more utility is another issue entirely. But, to say the two archetypes cannot co-exist is wrong.

[Nektulos-Tuor]

This is a really extreme and shallow approach to the issue. It lacks so much nuance it might as well be incorrect.

Their view on tanking classes isn't unrealistic. You could make the argument that encounters are just not tuned or designed correctly. When they say they're looking to change the encounters rather than change the classes, while I don't trust that they'll get the tuning right based on their history, it's an understandable way to approach the issue.

A lot of people spout out the idea that the best mitigation is more DPS. Since you kill something faster, you take less damage. That is a simplification of the truth and it's so simplified it might as well be false.

Here is the actual reality of what raiders deal with and why it's a nuanced issue --

There is no such thing as too much tank survivability out of context. It's always good for a tank to have more eHP.

The issue is understanding things in context.

Some MMOs have consistent eHP checks through higher tank damage intake and healer MP strain. If there is a constant stream of significant damage or unpredictable burst, then having high persistent eHP matters more. If you have higher eHP, it allows healers to be more MP efficient when healing you since less of their healing will be potential over healing.

The thing is FFXIV is the complete opposite of that. General tank damage intake is very forgiving and there isn't much unpredictable burst. The base eHP benchmark is low and we're given a lot of essentially over-powered eHP boosters to push ourselves to safety range for the predictable burst. Due to the nature of damage intake, healers have a much easier time being proactive rather than reactionary with their heals and can better plan out overall MP usage. Healers also have a lot of MP recovery mechanics as well as a raid battery.

Add that to a raid design mentality which forces you to optimize for DPS, and you get the current situation where tanks are dropping eHP they don't need to survive in order to clear DPS checks.

Normally, having more eHP allows for a larger buffer and margin of error. Because of encounter tuning in FFXIV, the added DPS does so more efficiently because of the design of mechanics. Take A3S for example -- Digi passing went wrong and someone who shouldn't have damage down has it? Someone accidently attacked the wrong hand for too long during equal concentration? Accidentally had someone die to tether AoE? RNG screwed you and linked your DPS in ferro-fluid every time for add phase? Mistimed a stun on a piston? Heavy effects constantly missing? Messed up a ferro-fluid and now have 2 people with atrophy? Accidentally had the limb clip through a puddle? Something went wrong and you can't rely on LB to either kill limb or nuke the boss? Normally, these would all likely wipe your party due to the drop off in DPS contribution. But, with enough raid DPS, they are recoverable mistakes.

On the flip side, there aren't that many mistakes that will punish a tank for not having enough persistent eHP. Having more eHP doesn't bail you out of many situations, either.

The balance between the two tanking archetypes exists within the tuning and design of the encounter. Currently, there is an imbalance in how impactful the two elements are on overall raid margins. You need to tune it properly so that the advantages of being tankier or having more utility are actually comparable to having more raid DPS.

Whether or not PLD is tankier or offers more utility is another issue entirely. But, to say the two archetypes cannot co-exist is wrong.

Having vitality lessons your chance of failure. (Makes you less likely to get one-shot.)
Having damage increases your overall sustain. (Makes the fight shorter.)

If Paladins actually had some cool utility, as well as Dark Knights and both were not pigeon-holed in "Magic" and "Physical" tanks, then this issue would all fix itself.

Example, what if paladin skills were based around warding damage off himself. Dark Knight skills were based around lifetaps?

Now you have 3 different tanks.
Life-tap Tank.
Preventive Damage Tank.
Raw DR Tank.

I think something does need changed a bit.

[SpookyGhost]

The balance between the two tanking archetypes exists within the tuning and design of the encounter. Currently, there is an imbalance in how impactful the two elements are on overall raid margins. You need to tune it properly so that the advantages of being tankier or having more utility are actually comparable to having more raid DPS.

Everything you've said here is irrelevant. Unless SE implements consistent fights where having more DPS makes fights harder, then DPS will always be a thing you want to maximize. If PLD's mitigation were to be increased to such a degree that it actually allowed for +healer DPS where PLD contributed as much group DPS as a WAR/DRK would, then you'd end up with everyone rolling PLD because who would want to bring the squishier tanks that are harder to heal when you can get the same result with a sturdier tank? This is the problem with balancing PLD this way. It's flawed and unrealistic to make one tank "tankier" than the others and still have balance, especially when said tank is the simplest to play.

[Shurrikhan]

On the flip side, there aren't that many mistakes that will punish a tank for not having enough persistent eHP. Having more eHP doesn't bail you out of many situations, either.

The balance between the two tanking archetypes exists within the tuning and design of the encounter. Currently, there is an imbalance in how impactful the two elements are on overall raid margins. You need to tune it properly so that the advantages of being tankier or having more utility are actually comparable to having more raid DPS.

Whether or not PLD is tankier or offers more utility is another issue entirely. But, to say the two archetypes cannot co-exist is wrong.

I'll agree completely with this, but unless you have a tank that has reliably higher eHP by nature of its passives and/or abilities, what you've mentioned here is more an issue of accessory choice than tank differences. The formula SE has put forward for tanks is interval mitigation--CDs and stack consumption--along with the occasional well-timed self-heal. Where the intervals cannot line up, one tank falls behind. Worse, where damage type doesn't line up, mitigation is often wasted. To say that a given tank can be "tankier" than its alternatives not only requires a change in the focus and tuning of fights (from where dps is your real lifeblood, rather than a safe margin of eHP) but also largely a redesign of the tank arsenal. PLD, with its added block chance, might end up with a generally higher eHP, but anything that depends on RNG is not going to be reliable eHP.

Even then, though, what such a tank would really be used to give is probably healer DPS. No more delayed DoT refreshes unless an actual tank buster is coming out, etc.

[Duelle]

I feel that the devs current view on the tanking classes is unrealistic as a whole.

Having one tanking class be the "dpsy" one and another being the more "tanky" one sounds great in theory, but it doesn't work in reality. Why? Because the vast majority of players will always prefer the "dpsy" one, as it makes fights quicker. The only reason they would prefer the "tanky" one would be if the encounter NEEDS that extra tankyness, making the other tankclasses useless for that encounter. This situation makes balancing the tanks realisticly impossible.

The only real way of balancing the classes would be for them to have the same damage output and survivability, but having different playstyles. Making one class do more damage will make that class prefered in basicly all content, unless it can't survive it, which would lead to the class suddenly being useless.

Agreed.

Their view on tanking classes isn't unrealistic. You could make the argument that encounters are just not tuned or designed correctly. When they say they're looking to change the encounters rather than change the classes, while I don't trust that they'll get the tuning right based on their history, it's an understandable way to approach the issue.

Actually it's very unrealistic when in the context of an MMO. If this were a single-player console RPG, this would fly because it goes in line with niche design for jobs to help one stand out from the other. This is an MMORPG, so other considerations are required. And claiming PLD has to be the most defensive and WAR has to have the most damage is just...misplaced conceit.

[rawker]

The only real way of balancing the classes would be for them to have the same damage output and survivability, but having different playstyles. Making one class do more damage will make that class prefered in basicly all content, unless it can't survive it, which would lead to the class suddenly being useless.

While true, it is still not immune to bias. If everyone has equal footing, in terms of dps and/or survivability, then the ones that will be the easiest to achieve max dps and/or survivability with will still trump the others. It will not still eradicate competitive people who will want to an optimal run.

And this trend will continue with succeeding expansions, when every new tank jobs are added. Oh well....

[Brian_]

People either need to learn to read, or learn to not comment on stuff they clearly don't understand. I specifically said the current end-game is not tuned to balance the value of eHP and DPS. The point is that SE has said they're looking to change hard-core raid design in the future and such a stance is theoretically viable.

This has nothing to do with allowing healer DPS. This has to do with the balance of mechanical margins for DPS vs. eHP vs. utility.

With the current tuning of end-game raiding, having more DPS equates to more stability and safety than having more eHP. Fights are not designed in a way that utility makes a real difference.

I'll give you a few very specific example of alternative tuning --

When you solo heal A3S, PLD becomes immensely more valuable to raid comps. Why? Because during liquid limb, your only healer is trapped and cannot heal. So, while the party is trying to break the healer out of the limb, the PLD can spot heal the current tank. On the second limb (if you get a second limb), the PLD can HG it while the healer is trapped. Are other tanks also viable choices? Yea, but you'll have a much harder time with the mechanic.

A3S in general has a lot of mechanics that favor PLD heavily even when done with a conventional raid comp. There really are only a few issues that stop PLD from being the best tank for A3S. If the margins for add phase were much thinner, then PLD's stun and silence would be even better than they already are. It would be a more equal trade-off with having higher DPS -- you can either stun the adds for longer to allow DPS more time to kill them or you can just try to kill them with higher raid DPS. If the boss hit harder and the blunt resistance duration was long enough to force tanks to tank with more stacks before swapping, then PLD's higher physical mitigation would matter more (RoH + being able to reliably sheltron slaps). At a certain threshold, they would be able to stay in SwO while the other two tanks would be forced into their tank stances to survive. If they spaced out the cascades / splashes / sluice + protean enough for Divine Veil to have 100% uptime (and maybe made reprisal and path not stack) then PLD would be the best option for overall raid mitigation.

Or, if in A4S, royal pentacle didn't just straight up kill you through hallowed ground when using the sac strat, maybe the benefit of not being weakened by resurrection would make PLD a slightly more competitive choice despite how stacked the rest of the fight is against them.

My overall point is the tuning and balance CAN exist. It just currently doesn't. So, when SE says that they're going to try to balance the tanks through the content, I can see how it would work. It's not a hard idea to understand. You either balance the tanks by equalizing their contributed raid DPS, raid mitigation, survivability, and viable utlity, OR you design and tune content that balances the differing elements of the tanks.

Do I think PLD is now balanced with the 3.1 changes? I don't. But, that is relative to the current content. People just don't understand what is wrong or how to fix it. That they can claim to know better than SE when their posts fail to acknowledge the entire picture is proof of this.

[Yonanja]

@rawker: While that is true, it would still be a better situation than if players could straight out prove that one class is considerably better then the rest. Bias will always be there no matter what you do... unless you just have one tankingclass.

@Brian_: As long as all tankingclasses can still survive the encounter without being a liability for the group, the one with the highest DPS will be prefered by the majority. What you're talking about is pretty much just turning the problem upsidedown instead. Making the "tankier" class be the prefered choice because the more "dpsy" one will have problems surviving or just being a liability to the group. It's not really something that would make the classes balanced if you think about it. Real balance is when you can't point at a given situation and right out say that class A is better for this, as class B can't handle it as well.

Also "theoretically possible" doesn't mean that it's realistic. This is an MMO, and the vast majority of players will always pick the "best" classes when given the option, which in most cases means the classes that can get them through the encounter as quickly as possible. I have yet to see a single MMO that managed to have a class setup like this where all tankingclasses were on equal footing in the eyes of the playerbase.

[Shurrikhan]

My overall point is the tuning and balance CAN exist. It just currently doesn't. So, when SE says that they're going to try to balance the tanks through the content, I can see how it would work. It's not a hard idea to understand. You either balance the tanks by equalizing their contributed raid DPS, raid mitigation, survivability, and viable utlity, OR you design and tune content that balances the differing elements of the tanks.

And, sure, the game would likely be better as a whole for it if SE would make more fights that can actually make use of these perks of utility between jobs. I think the main reason people are pointing at the jobs rather than fights, though, is that frankly it's a lot easier to believe that SE can make the tank fights more on par in each aspect than that they can create fights that consistently better equalize the values of the tanks' varying potential dps, eHP/mitigation, and utility, and simply because unless those opportunities can apply near-equally across all fights, there's going to be a preferred tank for each, at which point eso gear will be the only reason we'd have not to force our static tanks to swap out accordingly with each fight (hell with their preferred job).

Real balance is when you can't point at a given situation and right out say that class A is better for this, as class B can't handle it as well.

I'd be fine with just pointing to an encounter- or dungeon-wide set of situations and being unable to say that a given class is best. If anything, I welcome one tank coming out ahead of the others for a single situation. It's what makes us really notice... uniqueness.