Removing Tank Stance Argument

[Cabalabob]

The idea is to limit tank damage while tanking, but give them more damage when they're not tanking so that they're not TOO good and doing too much damage as a tank, but not left with so little damage as to be annoying to play through quests etc. I think that's the intent anyway. The idea with tank stance is to swap between those two extremes. The issue is that FFXIV content generally does not require the benefits of the tank stance, at least not for the majority of a boss fight's duration, which leads to people hardly ever using it. Were the game balanced in a way where you NEEDED the enmity and defense boost from tank stance to tank all the time it would serve more of a purpose.



I assume that anyone arguing to remove tank stance is assuming the extra enmity would be baked into the job, not just stripping away their enmity tools with no compensation. People don't want to just say, remove Shield Oath and make no other changes to PLD to compensate.

That’s what I’m getting at. Tank stance is so barely useful they could just bake it into tanks naturally then just have a dps stance that nullifies their tank benefits in exchange for dps. There’s no reason for tank stance on a tank, that should just be their natural state. Kind of like the reverse 2.x WAR where they only had defiance and they’d turn it off to dps.

[Bright-Flower]

That’s what I’m getting at. Tank stance is so barely useful they could just bake it into tanks naturally then just have a dps stance that nullifies their tank benefits in exchange for dps. There’s no reason for tank stance on a tank, that should just be their natural state. Kind of like the reverse 2.x WAR where they only had defiance and they’d turn it off to dps.

I don't think SE wants tanks to have their dps stance damage at the same time as having the tank stance boost to enmity and defense.

I wouldn't particularly mind myself, but it would require additional changes. PLD oath gauge is gained differently depending on which oath we have active. Dark Knight has some abilities that are only active, or work differently, depending on if Grit/Darkside or both are activated. I'm not sure about warriors but I think they have changes too between stances.

So they could in theory strip away tank stances and say give tanks a passive trait that boost their defense and their enmity at all times, but it would requite more work tweaking the tanks, war and drk especially, without it. And then there's the question of damage. Do you let them keep the damage they get from dps stances? Because the whole point of these stances is to nerf their dps and buff defenses/enmity when tanking, so if you let them keep the damage with no tradeoff, the question is does that make tankes too powerful, having so much defense and keeping their dps stance dps? Or do you lock their dps at tank stance levels and make solo play more frustrating?

IMO, I'd rather they either increase boss damage output so that tanks need to consistently be in defensive stance rather than just needing it for an early enmity lead, or just leave it as is, than have their damage nerfed locked in for solo content.

[Raldo]

IMO, I'd rather they either increase boss damage output so that tanks need to consistently be in defensive stance

Probably easier to just add a +30% (or whatever number) damage taken while in DPS stance.

[kidalutz]

The idea is to limit tank damage while tanking, but give them more damage when they're not tanking so that they're not TOO good and doing too much damage as a tank, but not left with so little damage as to be annoying to play through quests etc. I think that's the intent anyway. The idea with tank stance is to swap between those two extremes. The issue is that FFXIV content generally does not require the benefits of the tank stance, at least not for the majority of a boss fight's duration, which leads to people hardly ever using it. Were the game balanced in a way where you NEEDED the enmity and defense boost from tank stance to tank all the time it would serve more of a purpose.



I assume that anyone arguing to remove tank stance is assuming the extra enmity would be baked into the job, not just stripping away their enmity tools with no compensation. People don't want to just say, remove Shield Oath and make no other changes to PLD to compensate.

sounds like ARR and HW PLD Pre level 40

[shao32]

I actually tried experimenting with going without tank stance a while back.

It didn't go well.

Shield lob (PULL)
Flash X 3
Already lost aggro
Ultimatum + Flash
Lost aggro again
Mobs kill everyone
WIPE.

...Well, how nice.

But sure, let's remove tank stance, make the above scenario the norm, why not?

Removing tank stance don't involve losing the enmity we use to pull already, some adjustments need to be done to accommodate this change of course, so you scenario will not be accurate at all.

[Mixt]

Removing tank stance don't involve losing the enmity we use to pull already, some adjustments need to be done to accommodate this change of course, so you scenario will not be accurate at all.

But if Tank Stance does not exist then you won't have that extra enmity gain for the inital pull, so you won't get that early enmity lead.

And then that exact scenario happens.

Seriously, pulling in DPS stance and then spamming my aggro generation move got me nowhere when i tried it, aggro went flying and people started dying.

"The enmity we use to pull" as you put it will not exist in the first place.

[xJimmehx]

Seriously, pulling in DPS stance and then spamming my aggro generation

On bosses or weak hitting mob packs, you pull in tank stance as a war, then swap to dps stance.
Berserk, Unchained, Tomahawk, Thrill of battle/Equilibrium, Deliverance(Dps stance), dps down as fast as possible. If youre gear is good you shouldnt lose aggro before they die. (unless you have an ice mage with you)

It has never failed me yet.

[shao32]

But if Tank Stance does not exist then you won't have that extra enmity gain for the inital pull, so you won't get that early enmity lead.

And then that exact scenario happens.

Seriously, pulling in DPS stance and then spamming my aggro generation move got me nowhere when i tried it, aggro went flying and people started dying.

"The enmity we use to pull" as you put it will not exist in the first place.

you don't get it, removing tank stances will mean increasing the enmity on both you aoes and single target skills that have already enmity, you can't just remove tank stances without adjusting enmity and such on the rest of the skills to compensate the lack of tank stance, i asume it was pretty obvious.

right now no one mass pulling without tank stance, not even on single target boses, meaby with a ninja using shadewalker but thats not the point,tank stances are a pull tool and should be used always for that purpose, so idk why you try to demostrate losing tank stance will affect us with a unrealistic scenario and most importantly want this without proper ajustments to don't make a living hell.

[Lyth]

I think most of the problems raised regarding removing tank stances can be answered by simply asking yourself if the same held true for Healers and Cleric Stance during the transition into Stormblood.

Theory: DPS stances exist to allow tanks to do acceptable damage during solo play.

This same point was raised during the Cleric Stance debates last expansion. The idea was that Cleric Stance was only meant for solo play, and that dps-focused healers had somehow taken advantage of that fact and twisted it outside of its original purpose.

And then they removed old Cleric Stance. Healers were suddenly no better and no worse at soloing content. It didn't really change the raiding dynamic either. People who wanted to push their dps still did. People who wanted to afk during raid between heals to brew more delicious coffee still did. Unsurprisingly, very little changed.

Theory: Defensive stances are designed to keep tank damage in check.

They don't. We all know this. In fact, if the i270 STR accessories fiasco from the start of this expansion has shown us anything, it's that it doesn't matter how high you tune the damage output in a fight. If you create the possibility of doing more dps by playing more aggressively, someone out there is going to figure out how to do it. It was glorious how fast they rushed to fix that issue when they saw us using the old accessories.

Devs: "What do you mean there's no STR on your accessories? What do you mean your accessories have no gear progression and that we've deliberately nerfed your damage output? We have no idea what you're talking about. Here, have some more enmity." <snicker>

Players: "Oh, okay, we'll just use the old i270 accs then."

Devs: "W-wait!"

If all the very best players are forced to use tank stance 100% of the time, the vast majority of tanks probably aren't clearing that fight. Anything less than that, and you'll see people dropping stance.

If you want to control tank dps, you adjust the gear such that your tank does less damage. You don't need stances to do that. If they hadn't messed up on the accessories, it probably would have happened during Stormblood. I suspect we'll see a more deliberate nerf this expansion. Old prejudices die hard, especially when they're held by people who don't properly understand or appreciate the art of tanking.

But let's apply that Cleric Stance idea again. Did old Cleric Stance keep healer dps in check? Did removing it suddenly remove their limiters such that they did exponentially more damage? I don't think it really made a difference, to be honest.

Theory: Tank stances and the idea of tanks doing less damage is a fundamental concept based on historical precedent, dating back to the very earliest times when the first tanks emerged from caves...

This is actually historically false. The concept of "tanking" comes from Multi-User Dungeons (MUDs), which are the text-based predecessors of modern MMOs (played over telnet). Similar to their pen and paper predecessors, the power balance in these games was based on Warrior types being powerful at lower levels but weaker later on, while Mage types were weaker at lower levels but more powerful later on. They were also meant to be played ad-infintum, as once you hit max level you would just multi-class/remort back to level 1 to start learning all of your old job(s) abilities in addition to a new one (i.e. Warrior/Mage -> Warrior/Mage/Thief etc.)

When the concept of partying came up, later MUDs had your Warrior types learn abilities to Rescue/Intervention style abilities to allow them to temporarily take damage meant for a squishier party member at lower levels (think Cover). Your tank wasn't really designed to "do less damage". They were just a damage dealer which happened to have a utility move to let them save a teammate.

When the first MMOs came along, they expanded on the concept and developed the present trinity system (which in turn has influenced modern pen and paper games, coming full circle). But there's nothing intrinsic about making tanks do low damage. They do need to do less damage than pure damage dealers, because otherwise we'd just bring tanks and healers (we sometimes do that anyways). But tanks are still here to do damage.

Please teach me to be a pacifist with an oversized axe. My greatsword was clearly never meant to inflict mortal wounds. Tanks are still damage dealers, first and foremost. We just happen to be the only ones brave enough to hit from the front.

As far as stances are concerned, even if you look at Warcraft's Warrior (from which, to the best of my knowledge, concepts like defensive stances and the term "stance dancing" originate, you'll find that they too have moved away from the concept. Most implementations of stances are uninspiring and unnecessarily restricting to the player. It works well in some cases if it fits the flavour of the job (like a shape-shifting druid), but it's by no means an intrinsic or essential part of tanking.

I think from a newer player's perspective, the greatest fear regarding dropping tank stance isn't the loss of the defensive benefit. It's the loss of the enmity benefit. But you don't need a stance purely for enmity generation. All you need is a single cooldown on a short recast, that while active, multiplies your enmity generated by a set factor. Just keep it simple.

The main challenge in tanking isn't enmity generation, nor should it ever be. Most people aren't interested in hitting their dragons with foam bats while maximising their "aggros". It's about clever boss positioning and movement, fight knowledge, and mitigation. Streamlining tanking so that it places a greater emphasis on these elements would be a big step forward.

[xJimmehx]

My idea for war:

Increase Butchers Block's enmity potency plus add an HP leech
Increase Storm's Path damage potency and remove HP Leech
Same beast gauge numbers.

Remove stances and one of each set of stance specific skills. (Steel Cyclone or Decimate/Inner Beast or Fell Cleave)
If Steel Cyclone has its potency increased a bit to match Decimate. Keep the Hp Leech that was originally on SC. I wont miss Decimate at all. (Especially if its always good dps and never nerfed because of active stance)
If Inner Beast added the 5s Inner Beast buff and HP Leech while having damage comparable to Fell Cleave, again wouldnt need fell cleave anymore.

If tanking use BB to get aggro lead and if not tanking use SP.

Storm's Eye would stay the same.

It would be exactly like playing in tank stance full time, but wed still have the power to use our dps stance abilities when we tank with no penalties to damage output. The damage penalty is why most good tanks stay in Dps stance as long as possible. The only issue I see is Inner beast would have high HP Leech because of the high potency it would have. So theyd have to reduce the heal potency to feel less over powered. Same for SC, reduce heal potency.
Unchained(temp removes tank stance dps penalty), Deliverance and Defiance(dps and tank stance for war) would be removed completely.

One other change that might be nice is to add beast gauge to our overpower and make it a circular aoe that doesnt require a target.(i would love this even without any stance changes)