Results 1 to 10 of 142

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Player
    Bourne_Endeavor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Ul'Dah
    Posts
    5,377
    Character
    Cassandra Solidor
    World
    Cactuar
    Main Class
    Dragoon Lv 90
    Quote Originally Posted by Reynhart View Post
    It would still be better than making enmity something that tanks don't really bother to build. Beside, it's already a good thing to delay your "burst opening" to line up with party buffs and debuffs and if, like suggested, having the tank really high on enmity gives a DPS buff to everyone else, you'll want to delay it.

    Enmity is everyone's job. If you go full power with an undergeared tank and you rip aggro, even if he's doing everything he can, it's your fault.
    Uh, no. You aren't delaying your burst to lineup with buffs but merely rearranging things. Once the boss is pulled, I have my opener on DRG set and it does not deviate as buff alignment has already been pre-determined. Your proposal would force me to hold back Jump, Spineshatter Dive and etc because tanks couldn't establish aggro.

    Again, my only options in this scenario would be to literally stop attacking. Undergear tanks already have difficulty with aggro when paired with certain jobs. Making aggro management more difficult and DPS enmity generation higher would make it impossible for me not to pull hate unless I gimp half my arsenal or flat out stop attacking. Under no scenario should a DPS have to hold back on a single target, though yes, they should be using Diversion and etc.
    (0)

  2. #2
    Player
    Reynhart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Ul'Dah
    Posts
    4,605
    Character
    Reynhart Kristensen
    World
    Ragnarok
    Main Class
    Dark Knight Lv 80
    Quote Originally Posted by Bourne_Endeavor View Post
    Under no scenario should a DPS have to hold back on a single target, though yes, they should be using Diversion and etc.
    That's the only way to make enmity really matters, which is one way of encouraging tank stance uptime.
    If, however poorly you manage your skills, a steroid-infused-DPS should not take aggro from you, then they might as well remove enmity and just make tank stances a permanent Ultimatum.
    (0)

  3. #3
    Player
    Launched's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    628
    Character
    Rys Sol
    World
    Omega
    Main Class
    Warrior Lv 90
    Quote Originally Posted by Reynhart View Post
    That's the only way to make enmity really matters, which is one way of encouraging tank stance uptime.
    If, however poorly you manage your skills, a steroid-infused-DPS should not take aggro from you, then they might as well remove enmity and just make tank stances a permanent Ultimatum.
    Completely removing enmity sounds like a much better idea than forcing me to stop casting Fire IVs for any reason besides mechanics.
    (0)

  4. #4
    Player
    Bourne_Endeavor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Ul'Dah
    Posts
    5,377
    Character
    Cassandra Solidor
    World
    Cactuar
    Main Class
    Dragoon Lv 90
    Quote Originally Posted by Reynhart View Post
    That's the only way to make enmity really matters, which is one way of encouraging tank stance uptime.
    If, however poorly you manage your skills, a steroid-infused-DPS should not take aggro from you, then they might as well remove enmity and just make tank stances a permanent Ultimatum.
    Like Launched, I would rather they remove enmity entirely than force DPS jobs to stop attacking or purposely perform gimped openers. Furthermore, it's an arbitrary solution that doesn't make tank stance rewarding or inherently beneficial. It's similar in concept to the devs slapping a stance penalty on Warrior. People despised it not because their DPS was lower but how awful it felt.
    (0)