Removing Tank Stance Argument

[aqskerorokero]

In my opinion, Tanks should have a defence penalty when dps stance is on, we shouldn't put out almost same damage like a dps. SE should think about balancing dps cross every role not between tanks.

[347SPECTRE]

In my opinion, Tanks should have a defence penalty when dps stance is on, we shouldn't put out almost same damage like a dps. SE should think about balancing dps cross every role not between tanks.

60% is not almost the same amount of damage as a dps. Right now at the mid point of skill level, tanks are doing roughly 60% the damage of a dps.

[FallenWings]

....

I don't think forcing 4+ others players potential to be restricted by another player's competency is good for the health of tank gameplay nor the health of the game as a whole.

Enmity as a mechanic is not fun. There is no gain from excelling at it if the supposed "potential room" can't possibly be filled and all the more to lose if it holds back damage because perma-tank stance billy spamming 1-2-3 is the pilot of the tank.

[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

[whiskeybravo]

In my opinion, Tanks should have a defence penalty when dps stance is on, we shouldn't put out almost same damage like a dps. SE should think about balancing dps cross every role not between tanks.

The problem with this is how much of a defensive penalty? What's the point of taking an OT with lower damage, and now presumably lower defense, over another DPS job? The suggestion doesn't really work unless you make it a less-than-meaningful amount, and all that's going to do is shift even more burden on healers to heal through it.

347 says 60%, and maybe that's good enough for an average, but I'd say it's closer to 80% damage potential of a DPS. A major issue SE will face is that they've already established this baseline and it's what players will expect going forward. For anyone that thinks "tanks should just tank" there are twice as many that can tank just fine and want to deal as much damage as they can in the process. We don't have to get into a debate about how to tank to realize there is a diverse range of playstyles and if anything changes too drastic one way or the other there will be controversy from the other side.

No, I don't agree tanks should have a defensive penalty for DPS stance. I do agree that if tanks output 100% damage of DPS we would indeed have problems because people would just take tanks to survive through everything. 80% is a favorable number that allows tanks to be contributing but also not overpowered. And your 3rd point, doesn't really make sense. Of course SE balances the damage of a DPS to other DPS, healers to other healers, and tanks to other tanks.

[Kabooa]

The problem with this is how much of a defensive penalty? What's the point of taking an OT with lower damage, and now presumably lower defense, over another DPS job?

By having bosses be dangerous enough that swapping isn't a recommendation, preferably without forced swaps like 800% vulnerabilities.

[Seraphor]

Why does MT/OT have to be about damage output?

How about this:
Main-tanks: Get a trait at 30 that decreases damage and increases defence, and a cooldown/ability that disables this.
Off-tanks: Get a cooldown/ability at 30 (or starts with it for Gunbreaker) that increases their defence and decreases their damage.
(nuance can differentiate between main tanks or off tanks further, e.g. perhaps MT1 has a 60s cooldown that boosts DPS, while MT2 has a toggle-able ability that merely nullifies the dps penalty of the trait)

This would result in two different ways of tanking, one that is basically tank by default, but requires action to leave tank stance, and one that’s more dps/mitigation-support by default and requires action to become a tank.

For example, If Paladin is a Main tank, then Shield Oath would be a trait at level 30, and Sword Oath would be an ability.
Darkside being traited and Grit as an ability would make DRK an off tank.
Then I think WAR would be better suited as a main tank, with Defiance as a trait and Deliverance as an ability. (otherwise, unlimited Fell Cleave)
Which would leave GUN as an off tank.

This wouldn’t necessarily mean that main tanks need to main tank, meta could still evolve towards optimal dps, (unless the default aggro for a main tank makes it difficult to off tank, like a PLD before getting sword oath) but it would add some variety to the way tanks play.
For example, DRK/PLD could result in DRK bursting with Grit for aggro, and PLD using Sword Oath on cooldown and shirking every now and then. So MT and OT would be swapped.
Or, maybe WAR/DRK would have WAR main tanking, because its burst with Berserk has the greatest aggro gen, and then it can still burst with Deliverance for its Fell Cleaves, and DRK simply DPSes without touching Grit, using TBN on the WAR. This would be MT and OT in their proper places.
So MT and OT would be more about playstyle, than actual role in a fight, which would still be flexible.

[Summer_Iris]

Tldr: In my mind tank stances are currently a homogenous skill (executed in different ways) that conflates the enmity generation, defensive capabilities and dps balancing aspects of being a tank. If we took them away I think there would be more opportunities for creating unique tanking experiences by giving each tank tools to handle each thing in their own way.

Longer response:

I think the tank stance debate speaks to a number of different aspects of what it means to be a tank in FFXIV and the problem, in my mind, is it tries to solve too many things at once:

1) Damage balance and capabilities
2) Enmity management
3) Defensive capabilities

It then tries to create different ways of delivering this catch-all mechanic, which has the consequence of making things bland.

1) Damage balance and capabilities -

At the moment the only way of completing various encounters in the game is to deplete an enemy's HP pool. The only way of doing so is dps. Therefore, unless encounters either change the formula for success and / or completely removed the ability of tank and healer classes to do dps then there will always be a desire to maximise dps from all participants to ensure success i.e. the so-called dps meta isn't going anywhere.

The concern that tanks and / healers shouldn't encroach on DPS territory is sensible, but a tank stance doesn't need to do this. Just make it so that on a like for like basis on damage dealing skills tanks (and healer) dps is lower e.g. over three gcds if a dps on average deals 1000 damage, tanks and healers could be adjusted so that they only do 750.

This could be done via average potency reductions, fewer personal dps buffs, fewer DMG dealing ogcds or a combo.

Having done this I don't see any good reason for tank damage to be further compromised by a tank stance even where you have a 2 tank composition.

Instead the focus should be on differentiating and balancing how the different tanks deal damage. Stances could be one feature of delivering this like it is for Brd or BLM or Smn etc

[Summer_Iris]

2) Enmity management -

One of the primary roles form the tank is to hold aggro and switch aggro. This is very rudimentary at the moment and you just need more than anyone else and then a way of switching that or catching up in certain circumstances. Tank stance is just bland way of adding enmity to existing skills.

As others have mentioned the same outcome could easily.be achieved through a separate cool down that would be far more flexible. Also as enmity and DMG are interlinked, as a main tank you would probably be actively encouraged to pop it just before a burst / high DMG rotation. This way you could align enmity and DMG contribution aspects of tanking.

More broadly enmity management could be made far more interesting and be made more central to what a tank does compared to other roles. Whilst some may not like it (and it can trivialise enmity in some regards) I find the way provoke and shirk work is a far more engaging take on building and maintaining enmity than the pre-SB days. It encourages cooperation. More of this wouldn't be a bad thing.

As with damage dealing above, this could be an area where tanks could be given niches or different ways of managing / contributing towards enmity management whilst tanking or off-tanking. It would require some tweaks to how enmity works though.

[Summer_Iris]

Defensive capabilities
There is a thematic aspect to the tank stances too i.e. I'm in tank mode now or I'm in power mode. But that hasn't been the case for a while and seems silly when you've already picked the job that is by its nature a tank or that fact that they're just turn on or off buttons.

Tank stances from a defensive standpoint are a resource intensive skill with quite significant opportunity costs and marginal benefits. Also the differences between the tanks related to this skill are uninteresting and primarily executional.

I don't think there is anything wrong with having a defensive skills tied to resources (TBN, shelltron, IB). I just think it would be better to replacing the tank stance with more unique, defensive skills.
For example, you could still activate a skill that grants defensive bonuses but it runs out and you use skills and your rotation to maintain it (like dragoon) or, like storms eye, a skill could trigger a defensive buff that you could choose to maintain or play with your rotation to have it on when you need it etc