Removing Tank Stance Argument

[Seraphor]

"There's no "DPS Stance" for damage dealers that increases their damage and reduces their defence."

Blood for Blood?

You don't have to say it "decreases damage" but if the opposite, DPS stance increases damage, then, in relative terms, the tank variant must be less.
In this sense, all DPS classes have a DPS stance.
Astral Fire is a DPS stance, and not being in AF is a damage decrease, etc.

I propose that it should still decrease damage, because you'd need to balance these two paradigms with each other.
If OT's are in default DPS stance, and MT's are in default tank stance, then how do you balance those default stances with each other?
Without a decrease to the MT's default tank stance, then the MT's DPS boost will be above and beyond anything the OT can put out.
Without any damage modification, you simply have a tank that has an ever present defense boost, and a tank that only gets it occasionally. Obviously that's not balanced, in both cases the MT outclasses the OT in all ways.

MT: always has boosted defence, doesn't have any damage penalty, has a damage boosting cooldown.
OT: just has a defence boosting cooldown that puts it back on par with the MT's constant defence.

[Kalise]

"There's no "DPS Stance" for damage dealers that increases their damage and reduces their defence."

Blood for Blood?

That's not a stance, that's a CD.

You don't have to say it "decreases damage" but if the opposite, DPS stance increases damage, then, in relative terms, the tank variant must be less.

That's literally the same thing.

A Tank will look at it and be like "Well... I lose damage for being in this stance"

And again, NO OTHER ROLE IN THE GAME has to take a penalty to do their job (Outside of the singular CD from Dragoon, the DPS job with higher than average defences due to wearing medium armour for thematic reasons)

I propose that it should still decrease damage, because you'd need to balance these two paradigms with each other.

It shouldn't decrease damage.

SINCE THAT'S THE ENTIRE PROBLEM WITH TANK STANCE AND WILL CONTINUE TO BE FOR AS LONG AS IT EXISTS

There is literally not a single reason why Tank stance needs to reduce damage output.

Just like there is literally not a single reason why DPS stance needs to offer less defence.

Since, unless you're proposing that "DPS Stance" Tanks should be doing equal damage to actual DPS jobs, then there's no balance issue arising that needs to be compensated by penalties.

Since that's literally the only possible scenario where these penalties would make sense. If Tanks were doing equal damage to DPS jobs and thus people were incentivised to just run Tanks instead of DPS because they deal the same damage but are tankier.

But if Tanks, even in DPS Stance, are not doing the same damage as DPS jobs... Then there's already no risk of people taking Tanks over DPS, because people want more damage especially when Enrage Timers exist. (This even includes progression raiding, whereby you might think "Hmm... Wouldn't it be easier if the raid was tankier" but it's counteracted by progression raiding also has the issue of being less capable of meeting the Enrage Timer)

If OT's are in default DPS stance, and MT's are in default tank stance, then how do you balance those default stances with each other?

By... Not making horrible design decisions like forcing "OT's" and "MT's" and giving them default "DPS" and "Tank" stances respectively?

Especially ones that look to alter stats in bland and ultimately problematic ways that literally have existed for long enough that people are having discussions about simply "Removing Tank Stances"?

[347SPECTRE]

Blood for blood is a cooldown. There's also the fact that in a party with two tanks of decent skill, neither the MT or OT would be in tank stance to begin with.

[Seraphor]

Blood for blood is a cooldown. There's also the fact that in a party with two tanks of decent skill, neither the MT or OT would be in tank stance to begin with.

...which is exactly what I've suggested tank stances become...

And with the system I've suggested, the MT would either be in permanent tank stance with DPS cooldowns, or the OT could act as MT, necessitating the use of its tank stance cooldowns. Both playing differently, but both able to fulfill either role.

[347SPECTRE]

...which is exactly what I've suggested tank stances become...

And with the system I've suggested, the MT would either be in permanent tank stance with DPS cooldowns, or the OT could act as MT, necessitating the use of its tank stance cooldowns. Both playing differently, but both able to fulfill either role.

Or leave it as is or remove tank stances all together since a decent tank really doesn't use tank stance. The only thing I'd agree with would be a cooldown that boosts emnity generation. Why try to fix what isn't broken.

[Seraphor]

So.. what? tanks just become braindead DPS that by default have a constant enmity boost to all their attacks?

DO MY POINTS HAVE MORE WEIGHT IF I USE BOLD AND CAPS TOO?

[Kalise]

So.. what? tanks just become braindead DPS that by default have a constant enmity boost to all their attacks?

Only if you design them to be.

Or alternatively, you can design them to have differing playstyles based on what they're doing.

Such as having "Tank Stance" offer skills that react to incoming damage. Such as how Shield Swipe works, how TBN can provide extra resources when used to mitigate damage.

You know... Tank stuff. Where you mitigate damage and are rewarded for doing it well.

While you make "DPS Stance" offer more skills that function best when you're not being hit in the face by the boss. Skills such as Cover/Passage of Arms which requires you to position yourself in a way that would be detrimental if you were getting cleaved by the boss. Maybe skills with Side/Flank/Rear positionals to get bonus damage in a similar amount to how the "Tank Stance" exclusive skills do.

You know... Actually designing the role to play into its role.

Not just sticking Damage+/Defence- and Damage-/Defence+ modifiers onto braindead DPS.

DO MY POINTS HAVE MORE WEIGHT IF I USE BOLD AND CAPS TOO?

Such a thing was not done for "Weight" but to emphasis a point that has been either missed or ignored by someone.

Given that the statement in question was one that was a fundamental problem that has existed from the very beginning of the implementation of "Tank Stance vs DPS Stance" and is one of great importance when it comes to actually making Stances relevant in any way, shape or form.

Since, otherwise you get things such as:

Or leave it as is or remove tank stances all together since a decent tank really doesn't use tank stance.

Things that anyone who's ever played at max level should know.

That, because Tank stances offer a penalty to Tanks, that they're used as little as possible. Where ideal play is literally to just pull and use like 2-3 GCD's and then leave it. Where Tanks can be considered "Bad at pulling" because they need to use an extra 1-2 GCD's before they are able to sit in DPS stance for the rest of the encounter.

As such, if Tank Stances are designed in a way where they're giving damage penalties, they will continue to not be used.

If you design "MT" and "OT" Tanks where they are in default "Tank" and "DPS" stances and only offer CD's where they can swap over, then you'll simply never see "MT" Tanks played and everyone will use only "OT's" and only use the CD on the pull if it provides a boost in enmity (Which you didn't specify if it would. If it didn't, the skill would simply never be put onto anyone's action bar)

[347SPECTRE]

So.. what? tanks just become braindead DPS that by default have a constant enmity boost to all their attacks?

DO MY POINTS HAVE MORE WEIGHT IF I USE BOLD AND CAPS TOO?

No, it would have more weight if you showed you actually know about tanks.

[Seraphor]

Fine, let me present this is a different way.

One tank, say... Paladin, doesn’t put out as much damage as Dark Knight, by default. (Instead of saying it has a trait that decreases damage, let’s just say it has lower potencies to its skills)
This Paladin, then uses the cooldown-ability Sword Oath, to boost its DPS for a burst phase. With this burst factored in, its overall DPS is back on par with DRK.

Then, look at Dark Knight. Darkside becomes a trait, pretty much as it is now. But Grit becomes a cooldown-ability that boosts defence for a period of time and alters the effects of a few abilities, such as Plunge, which under Grit has an enmity boost and lower potency. A similar effect could be applied to perhaps Hard Slash and Abyssal Drain or something.

There is nothing in there that says “decreases damage”, except for perhaps those couple DRK abilities but that can be accepted as the quirk of that jobs mechanics.
This is functionally identical to the system I just described.

[Kalise]

Fine, let me present this is a different way.

One tank, say... Paladin, doesn’t put out as much damage as Dark Knight, by default.

Then Paladin would never see play.