Tank Stances, Traited

[Aana]

Leave tank stances alone!

In most of the game tank stance is encouraged. Even 'pro' tanks use tank stance for dungeon pulls. In mid level content (not cutting edge primals etc) Tanks have a playstyle choice. They can go hard and no stance for the epeen damage, or play it casual and safe. The content isn't hard enough to require the mitigation or the DPS check bonus. SO play how you like. This even applies to savage. My group often uses tank stance because the safety net is more important than deeps at our ilvl. The only place this doesnt apply is world 1st/1st week style clears of new content (and ultimate). In those situations you are undergeared as a group and need to do more damage so you make that damage via no tank stance. Its an expression of skill at that level because less skilled players wouldn't survive with so little gear.

Outside of that extreme cutting edge, tanks have an actual CHOICE to use or not use depending on their group, skill, and general preference. Stop trying to force your preference on everyone else. We have choice now. Don't $&%# it up.

[MauvaisOeil]

Leave tank stances alone!

In most of the game tank stance is encouraged. Even 'pro' tanks use tank stance for dungeon pulls. In mid level content (not cutting edge primals etc) Tanks have a playstyle choice. They can go hard and no stance for the epeen damage, or play it casual and safe. The content isn't hard enough to require the mitigation or the DPS check bonus. SO play how you like. This even applies to savage. My group often uses tank stance because the safety net is more important than deeps at our ilvl. The only place this doesnt apply is world 1st/1st week style clears of new content (and ultimate). In those situations you are undergeared as a group and need to do more damage so you make that damage via no tank stance. Its an expression of skill at that level because less skilled players wouldn't survive with so little gear.

Outside of that extreme cutting edge, tanks have an actual CHOICE to use or not use depending on their group, skill, and general preference. Stop trying to force your preference on everyone else. We have choice now. Don't $&%# it up.

I don't get this obsess you show in numerous post asking for no change except thoses you want, and refusing other's ideas if they risk threatening your own pleasure you show as "What the game is, and is for".

Each one's pleasure is just a matter of personal preferences, for yours and for the others, and the choice you call could only be called a true choice if the risk wasn't so much inferior to the reward.

[Aana]

Right now, there is an active choice in playing defensively with tank stance or not. Baking in tank stance outright or drastically widening the chasm between Damage/Mitigation of using offensive/defensive (50% mitigation etc) FORCE players to play a specific way.

Also reading comp. I often state my opinion that the style or character of a JOB should remain largely in tact. There are people that like the way jobs play. If you fundamentally change how those jobs play then you piss off everyone who likes it now and trade their 'fun' for the group that wants it to play differently. Example Drk is currently a 1-2-3 'simple' rotation. Some like that. Others want to change it to a multi combo system like pld/war. That's just trading 1 groups 'fun' for another. I generally feel that changing Job characterization (not balance considerations) is a waste of dev time. If you want a new 'experience' then make a new job instead of constantly pissing off half the players of that job rewriting its identity over and over.

What these tank stance ideas (most of them anyway) want to do is remove existing choices in playstyle and skill expression. That's bad.

Example: Bake in tank stance. Congrats. You went from 2 options (offense/defense) to 0 options. Playing Tanks. Nope.
Example2: Widen gap (make either defense much stronger or offense much stronger or both). Congrats. With mobs hitting 2x as hard and tank stance 50% reduction you have effectively removed the option to tank without tank stance. Vice versa if you increase offense significantly, or both. You went from choosing stance or no stance to "Am I taking damage? Tank stance. Am I not taking damage? No stance". That's not choice.

This is just removing choice that we ALREADY HAVE. That's bad. Many of my other posts are about not changing up job identities because you TRADE 1 style for another and rotate which fan base is angry. Also bad.

This is beside the fact that most of those aesthetic and choice based proposals also negatively impact balance while also just making people mad for no reason. Theres no point in it.
_____________________________________

The way tanks are now you can CHOOSE your playstyle. If you bake in tank stance or widen the gap drastically, you can no longer play how you choose. Whos 'forcing' whos play style on whom again?

[Reynhart]

Right now, there is an active choice in playing defensively with tank stance or not.

This is not a choice. Playing defensively brings not benefit at all once you have the skill and knowledge to play offensively.

If you fundamentally change how those jobs play then you piss off everyone who likes it now and trade their 'fun' for the group that wants it to play differently.

Changing the benefits of tank stance is exactly what doesn't change how the job plays since stances are "fire and forget" skills.

With mobs hitting 2x as hard and tank stance 50% reduction you have effectively removed the option to tank without tank stance.

Congratulations, you made up your own number to disprove an idea that wasn't yours, removing the other option available when I clearly stated that this option would remain.

The way tanks are now you can CHOOSE your playstyle. If you bake in tank stance or widen the gap drastically, you can no longer play how you choose. Whos 'forcing' whos play style on whom again?

Again, this is not a choice. If you're able to play aggressively, you're holding back the team by not doing it. If you're not, then you don't have a choice either.

[Aana]

This is not a choice. Playing defensively brings not benefit at all once you have the skill and knowledge to play offensively.

2.Changing the benefits of tank stance is exactly what doesn't change how the job plays since stances are "fire and forget" skills.

3. Congratulations, you made up your own number to disprove an idea that wasn't yours, removing the other option available when I clearly stated that this option would remain.

4.Again, this is not a choice. If you're able to play aggressively, you're holding back the team by not doing it. If you're not, then you don't have a choice either.

1: Tank stance as it is now, is a choice. Both are viable in all content except cutting edge world 1st clear scenarios. Optimized is not the same thing as choice. You are asserting that the ONLY way to play is the optimal theoretical way. That's on you. There will always be a numerically optimized way by no matter how slim a margin. Choice by its very nature cannot exist if you refuse to play anything but min-maxed optimization. That's why its not a choice at cutting edge hardcore levels. To be the best you play the objectively 'best' way the game allows, but at every other level those minute differences are washed out allowing regular folks to have some freedom. If you bind yourself to the elite hardcore meta when it doesnt even apply to you, that's your own mindset unnecessarily removing the choices before you.

2.You missed the point. Jobs don't have a variety of playstyle 'options'. A brd is a brd. A blm is a blm. If you want a different experience you play a different job. You don't respec like 1 job per toon games. Changing jobs IS respecs. Tank stances are the only active in-game flexibility you have in the way a tank plays. Wars are burst window tanks. If you want to play a different style you play pld/drk. Stances are fire and forget but change the dynamics of tanking. They are the only choice we actually have that affects our playstyle, and both are viable. Why restrict that? If you drastically widen the gap you reduce the windows where both options are viable. Its more all or nothing. That reduces the flexibility of stances. All this talk is just reduce remove. Why cut down and minimize what few options we have?

3. The numbers are irrelevant. The thread title is literally removing tank stances. Many a suggestions over 11 pages are similar or do the opposite, widen the gap between tank and no tank stance (drastically) in either defense, offense, or both. Both of those versions reduce the playstyle option we have with the current system.

4. See point 1. You are choosing to limit yourself to the world 1st meta when it doesnt apply to you and then basing your entire stance on that foundation. If you are still progressing today, your entire team is 240. World 1st walked in at 220 at best. You do not need that extra DPS they did, nor do you need the extra defense of tank stance. Both are viable. MC tanks in raid groups ACTUALLY use tank stance. The 'goal' is often to use none, but that's a goal. Not a real world experience in most cases. I am more conservative than my old co tank. He never used grit unless we made him. I tend to err on the side of caution until we are through prog. Its a choice. If you choose not to choose, thats your own deal. Its chasing a meta dream that isn't your practical reality.

[shao32]

snip

this like playing basketball, DPS stance represent playing with a profesional ball and tank stance represent playing with a medicine ball, are you telling me this is acceptable and a fair choice both "playstyle"?

i dont even want call it playstyle, not at least on DRK and PLD how tank stance dont modify they gameplay.

[shao32]

Stop trying to force your preference on everyone else. We have choice now.

sorry but you are worng on that and is not about impose my opinion over yours, but there is absolute no choice when we are talking about tank stances, or you tank in DPS mode or you are playing poorly, is that, tanking on DPS stance is far more efective that tanking on tank stance, there is not exist any argument against that, if bot stances have a efective performance, and i dont mean in terms of dps, then of course it will be have choices but for now one is god and the other is trash, to have real choices tank stances have to be at level of dps stances somehow.

[Reynhart]

Stop trying to force your preference on everyone else. We have choice now. Don't $&%# it up.

Oh, the irony of someone defending a unique playstyle asking for others to stop forcing mutliple playstyles...

[Bourne_Endeavor]

snip

Eh. Although I vehemently disagree with Reynhart solution, I find it difficult to argue tank stance is more than a superficial choice at best. Only using Deltascape as an example, there simply isn't any benefit whatsoever once you have a little bit of gear. Even without a Ninja, the addition of Shirk made aggro management much easier. All tank stance does is gimp your damage. It isn't necessarily an e-peen argument either. Mitigation has a threshold that once reach gives no reason to continuously stack it, hence why we don't often pair defense cooldowns together. Dungeon pulls aren't really a good metric because tank stance only has any relevance if you mega pull. I can and have dropped it with just six mobs plenty. In fact, PLD/WAR can survive the super pull in Shisui without tank stance.

I just can't get behind tank stance being a choice when the immediate recommendation has always been to turn it off as quickly as possible.

[Reynhart]

Eh. Although I vehemently disagree with Reynhart solution

I'm perfectly fine with you disagreeing with me. What I wonder, though, is how you would fix this issue.
Would you remove tank stance completely, forcing progression to be done through "agressive tanking" ?
Would you keep it that way so that those skills are doomed to leave our hotbars once we're comfortable with a content ?

Since tank stance only offer mitigation and enmity, I don't see how one could adjust them outside of making one of those desirable.