Tank Stance Redesign

[Tint]

The second thing that really makes tanking fun for me is being able to time mitigation. I really enjoy being forced to time a holmgang or an inner beast to avoid a tank buster. Active mitigation in the sense that it's timed is really fun. So for this, I'd like to make it so that tanks are encouraged to sit on meter, and challenged to decided when to use it for mitigation versus when to use it for dps.

They have just gotten rid of this for DRK, they removed the Dark Arts requirement for Dark Mind and buffed the damage of DA Power Slash, so it's not anymore a decision between dps or mitigation / dps or enmity. They still have TBN for defense and Dark Arts for damage wich both usees the same ressource, but you get the damage refunded when you use TBN properly and the shield breaks.

So I don't think something where you have to decide between damage or mitigation will coming back.

But yeah, as a DRK you basically already sit on your mana and decide if you use it for Dark Arts or TBN, while never capping it and never bottom it out completely.

[ArianeEwah]

Snip

Thank you for your input, NyneSwordz.

It seems you are not the only one who wishes for more active mitigation play, most likely similar to WoW as other in this thread already pointed that out. They increase thier defense and DPS by contributing great (DPS/rotation) play to the party. And I don't want to that to go either. That would reduce tank play to plain mitigation, aggro and position play. That alone is not challanging, on the contrary imho it's the least difficult task in the game. (I don't know about WoW, never played it more than 1 week a few years ago, and never touched tank there.)

The problem with WAR having self heal, they lost it with the end of HW. (As a matter of fact, it was indeed too strong then.) SE gave them a strong, then a weaker life leech in buffing Steel Cyclone instead. On the one hand, they made Defiance more appealing because it provides more sustain for the cost of damage. On the other hand, it is still lacking. Healing abilities are not affected by the healing buff and the insane damage loss. (Also, since SB they reduced the portion of life leech effects at level 61-70 because they added Tenacity; 50% life leech before are now ~40-45%, maybe higher with big Tenacity numbers - which still doesn't affect other roles than tanks, tho. This whole system is a mess.)

As you said there are other things than just tank stance that need to be looked at to make tanks fun to play. I just wanna focus on one aspect first, a design change of 3 whole jobs is too much. (At least for me.) Just giving ideas on how it could work well in the current system is enough.


On a side note. I read many comments about making enmity and mitigation more difficult. This is a game design change, not necessarily pinned down to tank stances.

[Lyth]

Stances are implemented effectively on certain jobs (WAR, MNK) and poorly on others (DRK). The biggest problem is that the game often actively discourages you from swapping due to resource costs (MP) or GCD losses. There's also an implementation difference between swapping between two stances (Defiance -> Deliverance) and simply turning off a stance (Grit -> no stance). The former functions like a true oGCD, while the latter can only occur when the global cooldown resets. The end result is that stances like Grit and Darkside can tend to "stick" when you try to turn them off. This is also what made Cleric Stance so frustrating to work with, prior to Stormblood.

The follow-up problem is that while you're discouraged from swapping stances, stances are then used to gate access to certain abilities, which then hardly see any use. And it's not like DRK has the actions to spare, either. We have the fewest number of actions out of any tank after Stormblood's role action system plundered our skillset.

So yes, I'd be in favour of removing stances completely. We have more than enough mitigation tools at the moment (too much, in fact).

...

The reason why a number of WAR's cooldowns don't really fit thematically is because they've been added in response to abilities on other tanks. Raw Intuition was introduced in Heavensward as a sort of physical Rampart substitute. But delicately parrying attacks with your greataxe doesn't really fit the barbarian aesthetic. Shake it off has been turned into WAR's answer to Divine Veil (and a better one, at that), but since when can non-spellcasters erect magical barriers to shield their teammates?

The driving problem here is this mindset that we have to have an answer for every unique ability that another tank has. You gave someone a gap closer? WAR needs a gap closer. You gave someone a party-wide shield? WAR needs a party-wide shield. Why can that other tank redirect damage from another party member to themselves? WAR needs that too. You could introduce a tank with a jetpack tomorrow, and sure enough, a patch later, you'll see jetpack-wearing barbarians, as per popular demand.

The end result is this Frankenstein monstrosity of a job that delicately parries attacks with an axe, throws out magical barriers, reflects damage, and drains their opponents' life energy. There's about four or five different tank concepts packed inside.

I think that you need to keep it simple. WAR's appeal comes from big numbers. It's that feeling when you activate Inner Release, activate your hardest hitting abilities, and watch those exclamation marks fly. It's also that feeling when you activate your defensive abilities and watch your HP totals skyrocket. HP boosts that let you shrug off attacks are nearly synonymous with WAR. Why is this not a bigger part of the job defensively?

Another recurring theme with WAR is the interplay between their offensive burst and their defenses. In Heavensward, Raw Intuition and Vengeance were used to generate additional Fell Cleaves during Berserk. In Stormblood, Thrill of Battle is used to make Upheaval stronger.

If you wanted to make this sort of interaction more explicit, give Inner Release some defensive properties as well. It already prevents knockback. There's no reason why you couldn't pick up some damage resistance or bonus HP to shrug off damage while enraged. You could then clean out some of WAR's cooldown bloat in other areas.

As far as DRK is concerned, it seems that our identity seems to shift constantly. We've been parry tanks, magic tanks, and now barrier tanks. It seems like every time we try to specialise in something, another tank comes along and does it better.

If you want to make DRK unique, there is one thing that we absolutely have to stake a claim in. This job has 27 years worth of series lore attached to it. We're meant to be this game's lifesteal tank.

The problem is that as part of the infinite wisdom of 1.x, MRD, and by extension WAR, were grandfathered into the concept. So we have a few elements of lifesteal on each tank, but neither is able to properly commit. Which is unfortunate, because there's clearly popular demand for such a tank.

The tools are already there. Souleater's lifesteal doesn't need to be stance locked if it's tuned appropriately. You want to make Bloodspiller not feel like a cheap Fell Cleave knockoff? We're never going to be able to compete in burst potential. Why not have it drain some HP instead? Abyssal Drain remains one of the only instances in which Dark Arts is a strict dps loss. Why not just make the HP stealing baseline?

None of these have to be for large amounts of HP. In fact, it's better when the HP arrives in smaller amounts. It's not designed to replace incoming healing. It just has to help smooth out incoming damage, similar to how block or parry function.

[Khalithar]

I'd say it's time to scrap some abilities and create some real estate on our hotbars. This may not be a popular opinion and it might even be unlikely, but I'd say it's time to scrap the stances entirely and revamp the passive/active abilities for the tanks.

[Jandor]

The stances can be used to save space though, warrior is definitely the neatest on my hotbars.

[whiskeybravo]

The longer the conversation the more incoherent the arguments.

The biggest problem is that the game often actively discourages you from swapping due to resource costs (MP) or GCD losses.

Not really, it's actually the playerbase that discourages you from swapping stances - the game makes it as easy as pressing one button. The negative connotation attached to purposely reducing your damage in favor of mitigation comes from other players only.

Raw Intuition was introduced in Heavensward as a sort of physical Rampart substitute. But delicately parrying attacks with your greataxe doesn't really fit the barbarian aesthetic.

Inner Beast was War's Rampart equivalent. Raw Intuition is more like Bulwark's counterpart. Dark dance was also a thing. All tanks had a "physical" only cooldown. Whether parrying fits the "barbarian" theme or not, the game allows all jobs to randomly parry physical attacks. The concept of a tank job being able to parry on demand, or have a higher chance of parrying compared to others, is not entirely out of place.

Shake it off has been turned into WAR's answer to Divine Veil (and a better one, at that), but since when can non-spellcasters erect magical barriers to shield their teammates?

I think it's fair to argue that it was SE which took the easy way out on SiO. Players just wanted it to be a useful ability. SE clearly made this ability overpowered for no particular reason.

If you wanted to make this sort of interaction more explicit, give Inner Release some defensive properties as well. It already prevents knockback. There's no reason why you couldn't pick up some damage resistance or bonus HP to shrug off damage while enraged.

IR can already be used to pick up damage resistance and bonus HP. Only thing that prevents this is ego.

As far as DRK is concerned, it seems that our identity seems to shift constantly. We've been parry tanks, magic tanks, and now barrier tanks. It seems like every time we try to specialise in something, another tank comes along and does it better.

PLD being allowed to block magic damage was a way bigger blow to DRK's identity than anything WAR ever did. And then to top it off, SE took the only remaining party mitigation DRK had and gave it to both the other tanks.

If you want to make DRK unique, there is one thing that we absolutely have to stake a claim in. This job has 27 years worth of series lore attached to it. We're meant to be this game's lifesteal tank.

I disagree with this on the basis that 2.0 WAR being a "lifesteal" tank didn't work. Damage mitigation scales with content, lifesteal does not. In my opinion DRK needs to re-emerge as the "magic" tank. WAR would be "physical", and PLD would be the best "support" tank for both.

----

Not really trying to pick on Lyth because I generally agree, but there was too much here to not comment on.

[Shurrikhan]

Not really, it's actually the playerbase that discourages you from swapping stances - the game makes it as easy as pressing one button. The negative connotation attached to purposely reducing your damage in favor of mitigation comes from other players only.

Connotation? In the vast majority of cases it's a simple mathematical check. Due to the game's tuning, it is incredibly rare in raid gameplay that tank stance will ever be more efficient than the lack of it. And if it's less effective, that's not just a connotation of inferiority -- it's a factual presence.

Inner Beast was War's Rampart equivalent. Raw Intuition is more like Bulwark's counterpart. Dark dance was also a thing. All tanks had a "physical" only cooldown. Whether parrying fits the "barbarian" theme or not, the game allows all jobs to randomly parry physical attacks. The concept of a tank job being able to parry on demand, or have a higher chance of parrying compared to others, is not entirely out of place.

For a tank, certainly. But for the Barbarian tank? It's absolutely out of place.

I think it's fair to argue that it was SE which took the easy way out on SiO. Players just wanted it to be a useful ability. SE clearly made this ability overpowered for no particular reason.

Agreed, I think? But, there were plenty of other ways to make the skill not merely a joke without simply removing the (direct heal trigger dependence) irritations of DV, increasing its frequency, and then further increasing its %Max_HP-to-shield cap, on a job that can already powerfully increase its maximum HP.

Like, they could let it actually purify more than the most minor of effects...

IR can already be used to pick up damage resistance and bonus HP. Only thing that prevents this is ego.

"Ego" aside, I have to agree that IR is already sufficient as a free mitigation resource. That would be more greatly the case if IB and SC were increased in potency but no longer ignored Defiance damage reduction, allowing IR to sync more powerfully with UC, but /shrug.

PLD being allowed to block magic damage was a way bigger blow to DRK's identity than anything WAR ever did. And then to top it off, SE took the only remaining party mitigation DRK had and gave it to both the other tanks.

I wholly disagree. Not only was there no excuse for a literal magicked guardian tank, as Paladin had indeed become going into HW, not to be able to block spells when literally doming itself off. Moreover, magic mitigation wasn't nearly as significant or consistent a factor to DRK outside of scheduled mitigation alternatives as people make it out to be. It wasn't integral, and it wasn't identity-setting. Instead, a would-be CD or augmentation was merely split into two, each of which cost a DA to make full use of. Only when facing BOTH magic and physical damage -- in perfectly machine-gun 15s physical and 10s burst magic periods of damage -- did DRK have moments to uniquely shine in sustained mitigation, and at further offensive cost at that. I'll agree wholly that Reprisal should have remained with DRK, though. But, I despise the Role Actions system in general, so take that with a grain of salt.

I disagree with this on the basis that 2.0 WAR being a "lifesteal" tank didn't work. Damage mitigation scales with content, lifesteal does not. In my opinion DRK needs to re-emerge as the "magic" tank. WAR would be "physical", and PLD would be the best "support" tank for both.

You've just dismissed a gear-based sense of progressive imbalance and replaced it with a content-based sense of imbalance... How is that a sizeable improvement?

It's true that life-stealing, as it is now, scales not with content, but with gear, just as DPS and HPS do, meaning that they would start off weak and then gradually eclipse content-based percentile mitigation, which cannot improve its defensive throughput over time/gear. But there are plenty of ways to add content-based scaling to that mixture. Just look at WoW's Warriors prior to BfA, for instance; the more they were hit for, the more they had to hit back with. Outside of CDs, their shield production was entirely Attack Power-based (i.e. gear-based), but the resource with which they afforded those shields scaled with content. In many other cases, tanks use scaled retroactive healing or damage on a damage-to-healing attack, e.g. based on the last 5 seconds' of damage dealt to you -- that, too, is content-based scaling despite a life-steal aesthetic.

But creating a purely magic or physical tank? You may as well literally just ask that every single fights' design be restricted into equal effective portions of magic and physical damage or that one tank (WAR or DRK) is barred from each fight (with PLD having a guaranteed second tank slot). Why? You might as well have fights that make it nearly impossible to support two melee, or where raid damage scales with the number of ranged classes in the party to be targeted by the debuff you'll have to cleanse (each for raid damage). Forcing roster selections based on fights is not good design.

[whiskeybravo]

Connotation? In the vast majority of cases it's a simple mathematical check. Due to the game's tuning, it is incredibly rare in raid gameplay that tank stance will ever be more efficient than the lack of it. And if it's less effective, that's not just a connotation of inferiority -- it's a factual presence.

No. If we were dealing with Gordias level DPS checks then perhaps. Thankfully SE learned how cancerous that level of performance requirement is for their community. The fact is there are tanks clearing with as little as 1.8k dps on the first turn and 3.4k on the last. That's more or less half the damage output of the "upper class".

But creating a purely magic or physical tank? You may as well literally just ask that every single fights' design be restricted into equal effective portions of magic and physical damage or that one tank (WAR or DRK) is barred from each fight (with PLD having a guaranteed second tank slot). Why? You might as well have fights that make it nearly impossible to support two melee, or where raid damage scales with the number of ranged classes in the party to be targeted by the debuff you'll have to cleanse (each for raid damage). Forcing roster selections based on fights is not good design.

I mean, I didn't think the split between magic/physical in sigmascape was a bad thing, it actually made me consider taking DRK in 5/6 for a moment. So yes, I do think they could do more with battle design to give certain jobs an edge in a particular fight. Doesn't mean make the fights impossible for other jobs, it means mixing it up so there may actually be considerations to make or various optimum strategies available instead of the same comp repeatedly dominating the standings raid tier after raid tier.

[Bourne_Endeavor]

No. If we were dealing with Gordias level DPS checks then perhaps. Thankfully SE learned how cancerous that level of performance requirement is for their community. The fact is there are tanks clearing with as little as 1.8k dps on the first turn and 3.4k on the last. That's more or less half the damage output of the "upper class".

But therein lies the rub. If the game makes no effort whatsoever to incentivize Tank Stance, there is simply no reason to use it. The players didn't arbitrarily decide Tank Stance was useless, therefore we won't use it. They determined nothing remotely requires it outside of opening aggro establishment. Just because we don't have silly gear checks doesn't mean tanks couldn't be taking more damage or have less abilities to essentially laugh off hits. It's a problem when you have a fight like God Kefka and his strongest attack will almost never be a factor because you will have immunities for all but one or two instances.

Being able to clear a fight with 1.8k DPS from a tank just means that player isn't very good. This is the perception SE has created. If you rely on Defiance or prefer to heal, you're effectively a bad tank or healer. You cannot fault the playerbase for this assessment when they are simply utilizing the tools at their disposal. A Dark Knight who stays in Grit 75% of the fight in 100% inferior to the Dark Knight who never turns it on in the first place, assuming mechanics are handled properly in both scenarios.

[whiskeybravo]

But therein lies the rub. If the game makes no effort whatsoever to incentivize Tank Stance, there is simply no reason to use it. The players didn't arbitrarily decide Tank Stance was useless, therefore we won't use it. They determined nothing remotely requires it outside of opening aggro establishment. Just because we don't have silly gear checks doesn't mean tanks couldn't be taking more damage or have less abilities to essentially laugh off hits. It's a problem when you have a fight like God Kefka and his strongest attack will almost never be a factor because you will have immunities for all but one or two instances.

Being able to clear a fight with 1.8k DPS from a tank just means that player isn't very good. This is the perception SE has created. If you rely on Defiance or prefer to heal, you're effectively a bad tank or healer. You cannot fault the playerbase for this assessment when they are simply utilizing the tools at their disposal. A Dark Knight who stays in Grit 75% of the fight in 100% inferior to the Dark Knight who never turns it on in the first place, assuming mechanics are handled properly in both scenarios.

The point of contention was the idea that the game actively discourages tank stance when, actually, it comes from players themselves actively discouraging it's use. Reaching 100% or 75% or even 50% of a jobs potential is not "required" in the strict sense that it's going to prevent you from clearing content itself. It may prevent you from finding a group because players are judging such, but this is different from the content actually requiring it or being designed to require minimal use of tank stance.

It basically boils down to an elitist argument. "I can do it without tank stance so why can't you?". "Just delete tank stance" Does it really matter if someone wants to sit in tank stance the entire encounter? Does it really matter? No, unless it's your tank. But at that point you get to make the decisions you think are best for you/your raid group. Leave the poor turtle tanks alone is all I'm saying, it's not hurting the % of players who can deal without.