Thread: Making Jobs Rotationally Easier in 4.0

Yeah, sure... ignore the actual meat of those posts where I provide the actual details and single out your very self-serving question with biased framing. What are you? Fox News?

The difference in summary is if you sit there in tank stance, it really doesn't matter what you use for CDs. If you are trying to push DPS, you need a refined CD rotation and pin-point CD timing or you will get 1 shot. In other words, if you push DPS, the damage intake suddenly becomes a check of how skilled you are at surviving. When you are just turtling up like a baddy, it doesn't matter as much.

The full context of that answer which you conveniently ignored is that I said I used my CD because I might as well. There is nothing else to use those CDs on for a full recast. I don't use them because the content checks to see if I know how to.

As for DPS,

Discounting AoE DPS padding, average DPS between melee, ranged, and casters in a live fight, should be somewhere around ~2100-2300 at ~i260-270 with high up-time. The lower the up-time, the lower that number.

Under similar conditions, tank DPS should be around ~1000-1100 with 100% tank-stance and ~1400-1700 with 100% DPS-stance.

Originally Posted by Brian_

The full context of that answer which you conveniently ignored is that I said I used my CD because I might as well. There is nothing else to use those CDs on for a full recast. I don't use them because the content checks to see if I know how to.

Problem is, normally, you should learn how to properly use your CD for maximum efficiency before learning when you can drop your stance. And once you master that, suddenly, dropping your stance has no effect on that. By the way you say it, it seems you're doing it the opposite. Is that really how progression work in Savage ?

Originally Posted by Brian_

Discounting AoE DPS padding, average DPS between melee, ranged, and casters in a live fight, should be somewhere around ~2100-2300 at ~i260-270 with high up-time. Under similar conditions, tank DPS should be around ~1000-1100 with 100% tank-stance and ~1400-1700 with 100% DPS-stance.

Thanks for the number.
For easy calculation, I will average everything so DPS are at 2200, turtle-tank at 1050 and DPS-tank at 1550. I won't count DPS from healers in the mix, since it would only lowers tank DPS proportion in the end.

So, with 4 DPS, a full OT and a full MT, you end with 11400 DPS (2200*4+1550+1050). The turtle tank counts for just above 9% of the total DPS. The higher dps stance uptime, the higher this number will mean, to a maximum of...13% with 100% DPS stance uptime. Even if I take the lowest turtle number (1000) and the highest DPS-tank number (1700), we'd go from 8% to 14%.

So, in the end, people are harshly rejecting "less optimal" tanks for, at worst, 4% lower performance of the whole group (Again, not counting healer's DPS). Disproportionate retribution, isn't it ? And since someone compared damage dealt and damage taken, I wonder if the overall damage taken increase isn't actually higher than 4% if your tank stays out of tank stance all the time. And I think it probably has less impact that the actual job you take (i.e having a turtle DRK instead of a turtle PLD has more effect than having a turtle PLD instead of a dancing PLD...)

Originally Posted by Lyth

If you want a challenge, and you want to push yourself, the option is there.

Yes, but I still feel that the challenge only really pushes DPS optimization (Even is you say that surviving is harder as a consequence) . That's why I'd like to have a tank with highest but less on-demand mitigation so that you could meaningfully push it in that direction.

Originally Posted by Reynhart

Problem is, normally, you should learn how to properly use your CD for maximum efficiency before learning when you can drop your stance. And once you master that, suddenly, dropping your stance has no effect on that. By the way you say it, it seems you're doing it the opposite. Is that really how progression work in Savage ?

I said that I started in Defiance when learning the fight and then after figuring out exactly how much eHP I needed and when, I restructured my CD rotation. So, in other words, in order to optimize for DPS, you really need to understand mitigation on a very precise and detailed level.

That's opposed to your mentality where you just turtle it up, never really have your ability to tank tested at all because you rely on your surplus of mitigation. You never have to refine your understanding of mitigation or really test your ability to structure an optimized CD rotation.

In one scenario, tanks are pushed to really excel in terms of their ability to understand mitigation and survive. In the other scenario, they are not. When and if you release content that truly pushes the tanks in terms of their skill at surviving, one will adjust just fine because they are already used to pinpoint CD usage and precise mitigation. The other will flounder once they no longer have a surplus of mitigation to mask their inefficiencies.

Originally Posted by Reynhart

Thanks for the number.
For easy calculation, I will average everything so DPS are at 2200, turtle-tank at 1050 and DPS-tank at 1550. I won't count DPS from healers in the mix, since it would only lowers tank DPS proportion in the end.

So, with 4 DPS, a full OT and a full MT, you end with 11400 DPS (2200*4+1550+1050). The turtle tank counts for just above 9% of the total DPS. The higher dps stance uptime, the higher this number will mean, to a maximum of...13% with 100% DPS stance uptime. Even if I take the lowest turtle number (1000) and the highest DPS-tank number (1700), we'd go from 8% to 14%.

So, in the end, people are harshly rejecting "less optimal" tanks for, at worst, 4% lower performance of the whole group (Again, not counting healer's DPS). Disproportionate retribution, isn't it ? And since someone compared damage dealt and damage taken, I wonder if the overall damage taken increase isn't actually higher than 4% if your tank stays out of tank stance all the time. And I think it probably has less impact that the actual job you take (i.e having a turtle DRK instead of a turtle PLD has more effect than having a turtle PLD instead of a dancing PLD...)

A lot of the harsher criticisms are not based on the standards I used for those numbers. For tank DPS, I took a tank who was capable of pushing the upper end of that DPS spectrum and just estimated how much DPS they would have if you told them to stay in tank-stance.

You asked for how much DPS they should be doing by proper standards. Tanks with misconceptions about DPS and tank-stance will parse way below the number I gave you because they don't meet those standards. If I were to base my estimate on my experiences with tanks that stayed in tank-stance because they didn't know better or couldn't manage otherwise, that number would probably be 500-800.

I'm not sure that I follow the reasoning that this thread has taken.

If you want to sit back, take it easy, and enjoy the story, the option is there. Nobody is forcing you to try hard or take the game too seriously. If you want a challenge, and you want to push yourself, the option is there. You will have to try hard and take the game seriously, but hey, you just asked for it. I feel like we're dancing between these two viewpoints simply for the sake of making idle conversation, and dragging it out every time someone jumps at a snippet of conversation bait. You cannot be both people at once. The game cannot be simultaneously too easy and too hard. I feel like this tangent is impeding any meaningful discussion on 4.0 tank rotations.

I'm really happy about the mention of the GUI changes and the idea of an Intermediate Training Hall. I'd like to see the latter integrated with the Stone, Sea, Sky system to serve as an entry point to raiding, just as Hall of the Novice served as an entry point into dungeons. I also think it's interesting to note that we may see Accuracy and Parry stats removed from gear. There were hints to suggest that we were moving in this direction earlier.

People have their own opinions and I know I am way too opinionated into pushing limits, that's just how I roll: play to have fun, challenges are my type of fun and my fun lies within raiding at higher level in this game. If raiding is that easy, I would have quit this game since ages ago but ultimately I came back after having twice resubbing after hiatus.

The game can stay where it is now and it still will be a game for all kinds of audience for all I care. People seem to have the wrong notion about raiding is all. When you are raiding, you are expected to do more than what you normally do. How do you know if what you are doing is good enough to clear? By getting into raiding and test it out then you get exposed to these experiences, and it's only natural that people want to improve but at what cost? Effort is needed when you are trying to improve, you don't just suddenly get so good from the start, that's just not have it works. Some of the new raiders are constantly improving and that's great.

Who knows what kind of meta SE is going to have us adapt to? All I know is I will try to be more and more optimized, be it offensively or defensively (even if tanks become truly tank and not just secondary DPS), or even both just like what I have been doing so far. That's why living beings are so great, right? Adapting that is.

Originally Posted by Reynhart

If that's the case here, then everybody posting on this forum (Except me, obviously), is world-first material...

I didn't mention anything about being world-first materials, you are adding your own thoughts into this. What I meant was that each group has different expectation, be it raiding at high level or casually, just wanting to get gear or beyond that. This means that you are running at different schedules, different timings, different group development and etc. Failure to comply as a member means you can ultimately get kicked, yes, that also includes improving as a player on all areas EVEN after clears if the group so wants it.

Originally Posted by Sarcatica

People have their own opinions and I know I am way too opinionated into pushing limits, that's just how I roll: play to have fun, challenges are my type of fun and my fun lies within raiding at higher level in this game

What I find exhilirating is seeing a tankbuster coming...and only eating a pityful part of my HP bar. Or using a well time HG to cheese the primary/secondary head back in T11 when the OT was dead...that was fun

Originally Posted by Sarcatica

All I know is I will try to be more and more optimized, be it offensively or defensively (even if tanks become truly tank and not just secondary DPS), or even both just like what I have been doing so far. That's why living beings are so great, right? Adapting that is.

The thing is, if they decide to make all tanks "turtle", I will probably advocate for making at least one of them focusing on DPSing, even if it's not my thing. Especially because different flavors are for different players, and streamlining everything into a single way can quickly become boring...

Originally Posted by Sarcatica

I didn't mention anything about being world-first materials, you are adding your own thoughts into this.

Yes, that's mine, because that's what I feel when someone judge a turtle tank as "sucking balls" at his job.

Originally Posted by BlackenedTiamat

They just need Fracture to be a skill combo off of maybe Maim (yikes a skill with 3 skill branches, but eh...) and make it give a stack of Abandon/Wrath.
edit* or Better yet, a skill combo off of Heavy Swing, similar to NIN's Shadow Fang

It would be neat if they gave each tick a chance to proc an extra stack of Wrath/Abandon. Would mess up some rotations, sure, but the dynamic nature of it could make things really interesting.

Or, if we don't want RNG, make each tick give a stack of Wrath/Abandon (and adjust damage output accordingly). Would make WAR gameplay a lot faster, and guarantee Fracture a home in WAR gameplay.