Let's Talk Tanks

[Shurrikhan]

It seems the sort of thing that would work better with a sub-stat expansion instead of a contraction, which I'm not opposed to.

I'm again not sure why you would assume that. Short of customization in the likeness of a sphere grid, a PoE skill map, or any other particularly dense talent tree, how are you divorcing specific gains (like "will my Shadow Wall be enough for this" or "can I have my Shadowskin counterstrike for me on all three hits of this tankbuster?") from general ones (like the Determination and Critical Hit examples I gave just before)? To separate general gains you would need tailored progression options in order to balance the weights of specific allotments, and even then those options would likely offer only a few competitive choices despite making the game far more esoteric and thereby divisive between players "in the know" and those outside. (That's not to say that I find such options to inherently boil down to "illusion of choice" -- no more so than job choice, at the least -- but that's not just a sub-stat expansion at that point; you'd be adding an entire Junction system of sorts.)

So, again, why not just take a running theme instead and apply it generally? The actual results of each can still be quite deliberate and inherently tailored to each role, since the rotational windows, procs, and numeric breakpoints of tanks and healers will inherently be linked also to tanking and healing just as those of damage-dealers will double down on dealing damage. I didn't pick those core three sub-stats arbitrarily; they specifically allow for control over rotational frames, and control over proc-based gameplay, and control over breakpoints outside of rotation or general proc chance, covering almost any and all gameplay alteration between them so you can tailor your job to your preferred macrorotations and windows for mechanical checks.

A slight sub-stat expansion, especially when allowing the choice between the offensive and defensive, only faces the same issues we already face: rather than, say, offering tanks the choice of how they want to tank, you offer the choice of whether to be more, or less, like tanks at all -- and the damage intake of any new tier, specific fight, or as faced by their toolkit in the context of their co-tank, will usually make that choice for them.

[Kabooa]

I'm again not sure why you would assume that.

Because what happens if I want to boost my shield via Determination, but I'd prefer to have Critical Strike and Haste as my focused stats? There's a specific part of my offense I want to focus on, but it's separate from what I want for my defense.

How would decoupling the defensive properties, give them their own categories, and then rebalancing the stat budget where gear comes with 1 Offense, 1 Defense, and then materia serves as your choice for where to further specialize, not serve your model better?

[Shurrikhan]

Edit: Confusion on my part.

How would decoupling the defensive properties, give them their own categories, and then rebalancing the stat budget where gear comes with 1 Offense, 1 Defense, and then materia serves as your choice for where to further specialize, not serve your model better?

Because we play under developers who prefer to make damage almost always the objectively best solution? Because when players have the choice of the unfun but numerically far superior option (as damage has pretty much always been in this game), most take it regardless of its relative cost to their gameplay? Because when you give options each from category Superior and category Inferior, the latter may as well not exist? Because it only really offers choices in answer to "How much can I be less of a tank" as the best progression path for tanks?

You'd effectively just give us gear with a single secondary stat each, completely contrary to the player choice my model is aimed at.

[Kabooa]

Because we play under developers who prefer to make damage almost always the objectively best solution? Because when players have the choice of the unfun but numerically far superior option (as damage has pretty much always been in this game), most take it regardless of its relative cost to their gameplay? Because when you give options each from category Superior and category Inferior, the latter may as well not exist? Because it only really offers choices in answer to "How much can I be less of a tank" as the best progression path for tanks?

You'd effectively just give us gear with a single secondary stat each, completely contrary to the player choice my model is aimed at.

Do recall this thread makes the assumption that additional background changes are implemented to accommodate a suggestion.

The Devs prior behavior can be, in this land of make believe, considered invalid and moving forward we can have wildly different encounter set ups. Don't work under the assumption that damage is always the more efficient solution.

If we're just going to labor under the assumption that only damage matters, we might as well close up shop, because we have a whole forum of that to work with already.

So let me clarify.

The primary issue I have with such specific secondary effects to the attributes is that I cannot choose to have those specific interactions without picking an offensive stat I may not want.

I might even argue that shifting the passive power gain to pure item Level or primary attributes and letting things that dictate your rotation be the primary sub-stats themselves would be the better course.

[Shurrikhan]

Edit: Ignore my complaints. They are mistaken. Your idea is fine.

Do recall this thread makes the assumption that additional background changes are implemented to accommodate a suggestion.

The Devs prior behavior can be, in this land of make believe, considered invalid and moving forward we can have wildly different encounter set ups. Don't work under the assumption that damage is always the more efficient solution.

If we're just going to labor under the assumption that only damage matters, we might as well close up shop, because we have a whole forum of that to work with already.

Understood. But, it's that's not just an XIV paradigm; it's an inherent issue with capped outputs like mitigation and healing. Damage-centric progression therefore tends to norm for nearly every MMO with a serious raid community, save perhaps for the odd raid in GW2 and cutting edge progression that's meant to otherwise lock us out of completion until we've had additional weeks to gear up from the same raid. Without allowing defensive stats to themselves be flex stats of sorts, such that their would-be excess mitigation can see real purpose, you condemn them to that same inherent issue.

The primary issue I have with such specific secondary effects to the attributes is that I cannot choose to have those specific interactions without picking an offensive stat I may not want.

What does it matter though, so long as everything is equally offensive or defensive, in that they're all flex stats? Is it worth so much more to be able to choose to be a turtle tank or dps-tank--especially given that unless all fights have homogenous dps checks and mitigation checks that decision will be mostly forced--than to have your choice of how you want your tank (not a turtle-tank or a dps-tank, just... a tank) to play?

Inevitably, you either have (1) less deliberate damage vs. mitigation choices or (2) one category or the other made inferior by situation. That's not to say that we can't make compelling progression via defensive vs. offensive choices, building up a defensive set for this one savage dungeon with disgustingly hard pulls and another set for speedrunning another bit of high-end content (where the two cannot mix while still getting above 80% performance or so). It's just... not my preference. I prefer that if we're to have deliberate branching gear progression, which is all I've ever seen from such systems, it should be with those particular branching content paths in mind, not just as a consequence of general gearing systems, and in the meantime our gear should choose only how we play through content and rarely ever what content we can play through.

I might even argue that shifting the passive power gain to pure item Level or primary attributes and letting things that dictate your rotation be the primary sub-stats themselves would be the better course.

That's effectively what I've suggested, except in that it's quite literally impossible to positively affect gameplay (at least without specifically negatively affecting gameplay elsewhere) without also positively affecting performance (which in turn amounts also to passive power).

[Kabooa]

Understood. But, it's that's not just an XIV paradigm; it's an inherent issue with capped outputs like mitigation and healing. Damage-centric progression therefore tends to norm for nearly every MMO with a serious raid community, save perhaps for the odd raid in GW2 and cutting edge progression that's meant to otherwise lock us out of completion until we've had additional weeks to gear up from the same raid. Without allowing defensive stats to themselves be flex stats of sorts, such that their would-be excess mitigation can see real purpose, you condemn them to that same inherent issue.

Flex implies you get choice in the matter.

Again - I am not getting the choice in what I want. I don't get to take A by itself. A is connected to B, and if I don't want B, too bad.

Even if you perfectly tune everything so that it is equally effective, even if we still max out two of the now three stats, that still leaves several cases - Where I want the offense of two stats, but the defense of the third.

Which still baffles me why you're so opposed to just decoupling the offense from the defense, and create the stat budget so that you must have a Defense stat. You do not lose anything if you could gain nothing in its place.

Even if changing nothing else, all it does is give the player more choice in the matter.

And that matters. The flavor in how the tank defends matters, the flavor in how the tank attacks matters, and creating a scenario where you cannot have one because of an unrelated, noncompeting choice kind of sucks, especially if they're so evenly tuned that the difference between any of it is marginal.

[Shurrikhan]

Create the stat budget so that you must have a Defense stat [which cannot share allotted potential with the offensive].

I see now where I had brainfarted earlier. Previously I had connected the idea to my own, wherein you would be able to choose between the two, despite there obviously being no such intent on your part. My sincere apologies.

Yep, that'd be fine then. I usually prefer to start with simple (read: few) but effective (read: gameplay-affecting) stats, but there are definitely ways to make, say, 6 of them each feel distinct, impactful, and intuitive.

Out of curiosity, what flavors did you have in mind for defensives?