Can we please get aggro management back?

[Fluffernuff]

I recall a specific thread back when Stormblood first released begging to remove the gauge penalty for stance dancing. So, yes, I do remember stance dancing, more so in dungeons than in raid content.

Alright. so. There's much, much more nuance to this than you let on, here.
Before explaining what/why... we all need to get something out of the way about this; This was a WAR specific issue. and had very little to do with the stance effects themselves.

To your credit, though, WAR did Stance Dance. At least the *proper* WARs did...... but it was never for emnity. or for any sort of nuance for aggro management. Heck, memes aside, it wasnt even for damage sometimes. Stance Dancing DID happen, even in Raid content. Though to a lesser extent, as you say. Fell Cleave was the way, but you cant do that when you got killed. "Just pop IB 4head"


Here's the thing about WAR in HW+SB; Deliverance and Defiance changed the effects of several abilities. Abilities such as Steel Cyclone, Equilibrium, and Inner beast/Fell Cleave. Inner beast and steel cyclone in specific being an on-demand 20% damage mitigation, and steel cyclone being an AoE leech. It was common to use these for large pulls, for Tank Busters (unchained removing the damage penalty) and the like.

The reason there was an outcry about this is BECAUSE WAR was the only tank that had an actual reason to change stances..... and were the only tanks that had a penalty for it. PLD didnt lose oath gauge. DRK could have grit AND darkside without losing blood gauge. WARs peers lost nothing for the same benefits. it was blatantly imbalanced, and using the tools available to you severely dug into a WARs performance.

That was the outcry.

[Claire_Pendragon]

tank stance balance stuff-

It took 7 GCDs in order to make turning on the stance neutral in DPS. by the 8th GCD you were finally at a DPS gain. So you had to go w/o needing the tank stance for 8 GCDs.
PLDs and DRKs were already penalized in some shape or form. (including the MP cost for DRK) WAR had no activation cost, nor resource cost.
This sounds fair, but in reality it wasnt fair to WARs, because people didnt understand that inner beast wasnt meant to be an "On demand CD for TBs" in the same way it is now, or was used then.

ALL tank stances were either meant for threat, or tank busters. Tank stance took up a GCD for PLD in 2.0, and WAR had to use up a GCD for inner beast.
They were meant to both be used for TBs. WAR gained the extra max HP, followed by a self heal to fill the newly obtained max HP. (aka, akin to TBN)
But PLDs could just sit in tank stance, leading to less dmg taken in prolonged dmg intake, and stack other CDs to make them too tanky, to the point SE had to change WAR to match what PLD could do. (PLD needed nerfed, not WAR buffed, as this ruined tanking mitigation forever)
Once WAR gained the -20% dmg taken, it made for an awkward scenario where WAR was essentially doubling up on its surivival, with both 20% more HP/healed amount, and 20% mitigation.

This is mostly why people started seeing IB as the TB CD that IR is today, but still saw PLDs tank stance as a stance, and not a CD.
HW tanking was designed around the idea tank stances were youre "Free CD" thats always available, if you didnt plan your cooldowns correctly, so it came at a cost." PLD being 2 GCDs for stance dancing, DRK was 1 GCD and MP, and WARs was a GCD and beast gauge for IB.
So adding an additional cost to the beast gauge was unfair for mitigation purposes. But it WAS fair for "threat" purposes, as WAR already had so many ways in which to handle threat over the other 2 tanks. (And DRK was so bad, you wanted a NIN to keep their threat up high, and a WAR to open the pull with, as even a PLDs threat wasnt as good enough lead for a DRK to tank out of tank stance)
In the end, threat was essentially a joke in SB due to shirk being added, so there was no reason to add a penalty to WAR for its high threat, since shirk allowed for easy threat on DRk and PLD.
So yes, the beast gauge penalty to stance dancing was unfair, but it makes sense why they 'thought' it was reasonable.
(Granted they also though giving WAR and PLD more useful tools over DRK was also a good idea. They thought shirk was a good idea, despite just needing to fix provoke into having a 6 second effect that makes the target hit u, even if you're not the highest in threat. which would bring back the need to use threat combos for tank swaps, etc. But most of the SB/ShB team are the B team, with the biggest people being pulled away secretly for FF16 (or what we assume is FF16) as they left before the patches to HW.)

1) Not everyone wants to 'pick a different tank.'

I rather have that, than me currently not wanting to pick any tank, because i dislike them all.
You're assuming all players want the current system. Also, this rule already applies to DPS. Just because most players dont like dealing with cast bars, and being too stationary, doesnt mean we shouldnt have casters. Yes, if they picked a mage, and complain they dont liek cast bars, you do tell them to pick another job, like a physical ranged. (if they picked them for ranged) You do not just make every job ranged, with instant casts, and no positionals, because you dont want to make players choose their playstyle.

You mostly cherry pick peoples opinions who align with your own, either because you tune out opposing opinions, or you mostly didnt hang around people who had the opposing opinions.

Most players complain when they get hit by an obvious orange telegraphed AoE marker. Does that mean we should remove all AoEs in the game? and just let ppl sit still and hit a stationary target?
Obviously this rhetorical question brings up how ppl can say "This is so much easier" than prior stuff, because the difficulty is taken out, but that doesnt mean its actually better as a product.
But Im also not biased enough to think that giving an option to aid players wouldnt be fun for them. I know what I enjoy wont be what others enjoy. I also know ppl are good/better/more interested in different stuff. One finds DoTs annoying, some find cast bars annoying, some find positionals annoying, some find timers ticking down annoying. But going back to those who like tanking, they may like different aspects of tanking, be it threat, mitigation, DPS, or a combination. Most people play DPS, making tanks/healers just DPS is only partly the answer. I have no interest in playing a tank, because playing a DPS is more rewarding than tanks atm.

For #3, most tanks played DRK... so i disagree with your statement. WAR was the least played tank by a lot. i hated SB DRK because HW DRK was more engaging. SB DRK was just faster paced, and felt unga buna to me. (I actually felt more engagement from SB WAR than SB DRK, due to threat control.) I didnt like how WAR and PLD had tools in which to cheese mechanics, but DRK just had weaker/lesser versions of what the other 2 had. Either weak enough to not be able to cheese something, or if it could cheese it, the other was better at it.
I dont feel the content should have been designed this way (I doubt it was intentional) but DRK was originally a reasonable~ middle ground before WARs changes put it above DRK.
But despite my dislike of DRKs treatment, DRK was still super popular, and even world firsts were using DRK.

As for your statement about the oGCD tank user, i didnt lay out a full blown job for you. I gave a simplistic answer. also, you have rampart for every pull as a tank, how would u not have tank stance up for every pull? i even keep up storms eye buffs between pulls, before AoEs refreshed them. im sorry, thats a problem with the tank player. next you'll tell me how DRKs who ran out of MP in HW meant that DRK was a flawed job. if u didnt have MP, there went your AoE threat, and u couldnt pull hate on the next pack of mobs. (You kept MP, or built up MP before the mobs died)

[Ultimatecalibur]

ALL tank stances were either meant for threat, or tank busters. Tank stance took up a GCD for PLD in 2.0, and WAR had to use up a GCD for inner beast.

There is so much wrong with this sentence that I barely know where to start. IB took 8 or 9 gcds to perform if you were starting from no stance.

They were meant to both be used for TBs. WAR gained the extra max HP, followed by a self heal to fill the newly obtained max HP. (aka, akin to TBN)
But PLDs could just sit in tank stance, leading to less dmg taken in prolonged dmg intake, and stack other CDs to make them too tanky, to the point SE had to change WAR to match what PLD could do. (PLD needed nerfed, not WAR buffed, as this ruined tanking mitigation forever)

First off there was absolutely no reason for WARs to stance dance in 2.0 (Paladins didn't stance dance either because incoming damage was high enough and constant enough that you wanted the damage reduction constantly when MTing). You were either MT in Defiance where you were building up Wrath stacks or OTing with Defiance off. Wrath stacks were initially the source of the Warriors increase healing, the Warrior either sat on 5 stacks of Wrath and had a similar amount of incoming healing as a Paladin or was 20% more difficult to heal because they had spent their 5 stacks to overheal themselves.

During 2.0, if a WAR outgeared content they were pretty much invincible in Defiance, but if they did not the were incredibly squishy as the were primarily reliant of self-healing damage after it occurred and boss damage often outclassed their self-healing.

Once WAR gained the -20% dmg taken, it made for an awkward scenario where WAR was essentially doubling up on its surivival, with both 20% more HP/healed amount, and 20% mitigation.

No... after the 2.1 changes WAR and PLD had similar ehp and healing received profiles. IB giving a 20% mitigation was actually the equivalent of the PLD's Rampart and is what let WARs survive T1-T5 tankbusters.

This is mostly why people started seeing IB as the TB CD that IR is today, but still saw PLDs tank stance as a stance, and not a CD.

You are wrong. The introduction of Deliverance and Fell Cleave is what turned Defiance, Grit and Shield Oath into psuedo-cooldowns. Prior to 3.0, Warrior could not stance dance as you were required to be in stance to build Wrath and the moment you left it you lost all stacks. With the introduction of Deliverance and the fact it shared stacks with Defiance, swapping between dps mode and tank mode cost the Warrior nothing. Prior to that it took 7 to 8 gcds to fully activate Defiance.

HW tanking was designed around the idea tank stances were youre "Free CD" thats always available, if you didnt plan your cooldowns correctly, so it came at a cost." PLD being 2 GCDs for stance dancing, DRK was 1 GCD and MP, and WARs was a GCD and beast gauge for IB.

No, it wasn't. People started using them as cooldowns with 3.2 due to the damage in A5S through A8S being tuned for tanks in i220 gear rather than tomestone/raid gear like A1S-A4S were tuned for. After you reached a certain average ilevel you didn't need the mitigation gained from tank stance to survive non-tankbuster damage anymore.

[MariaArvana]

I rather have that, than me currently not wanting to pick any tank, because i dislike them all.

And Square disagrees based on how they designed the tanks in SHB. We can agree to disagree on this one, as its personal opinions.

You're assuming all players want the current system. Also, this rule already applies to DPS. Just because most players dont like dealing with cast bars, and being too stationary, doesnt mean we shouldnt have casters. Yes, if they picked a mage, and complain they dont liek cast bars, you do tell them to pick another job, like a physical ranged. (if they picked them for ranged) You do not just make every job ranged, with instant casts, and no positionals, because you dont want to make players choose their playstyle.

You can assume what you want, I'm just speaking from the evidence that Square made tanking much easier overall as a response to how it ended up in SB. Sure, many players may not want the current system, but I'm willing to bet just from multiple friends I've chatted to and have enjoyed tanking since the beginning of SHB that many also enjoy this system. As to the 2nd point, jobs within role group have universally similar concepts. Making a tank that sucks at building aggro compared to the others would be the equivalent of making BRD have to stand closer to its enemy all the time to use weapon skills. It'd make for an alternative gamestyle, but compared to others in its category, there's a fundamental difference between it and the others.

Lets use an even better example. Remeber BRD back in HW when it had castbars? How it fundamentally changed an aspect of the ranged role and people complained ad naseum about it, especially when it was apparent MCH was built with castbars in mind, whereas they were obviously tacked on to BRD to create parity? yeah.

Most players complain when they get hit by an obvious orange telegraphed AoE marker. Does that mean we should remove all AoEs in the game? and just let ppl sit still and hit a stationary target? Obviously this rhetorical question brings up how ppl can say "This is so much easier" than prior stuff, because the difficulty is taken out, but that doesnt mean its actually better as a product.

Rhetorical or not, the purpose of Square changing aggro was to make the role more popular to people adversed to tanking. They have literal terabytes of statistics of their playerbase and multiple language forums to funnel info from. When they decided to change aggro management, it's pretty obvious it was based on a statistical decision to benefit the majority, whether you personally enjoy the end product or not.

For #3, most tanks played DRK... so i disagree with your statement.

FFlogs from HW & SB severely disagrees with you. WAR was the absolute KING for basically two expansions straight. for the entirety of HW it had a permanent 10% damage down on the boss, making it basically mandatory for any serious to kill raid group in the early weeks. Then IR came in SB and especially in 4.2 when it got changed, WAR was just an unstoppable force in raids due to how absurdly it could generate aggro compared to the other two tanks without suffering dps loss, creating large rdps contributions with slashing, etc. and PLD in SB got insanely strong, and was in the vast majority of ultimate clearing groups. DRK got left in the dust in SB. It wasn't until SHB that WAR finally resigned from its throne.

Alexander Savage had 18k parses that involved a WAR compared to DRK/PLD's 10/9k.
Alphascape Savage had both WAR & PLD sitting around 16l-18k parses compared to DRK's 6k.

Let those numbers sink in. WAR was literally played in raids almost 3x as much as DRK in SB, and 2x as much in HW. So no...DRK was far from the 'most' played. Literally the exact opposite, Empirically.

As for your statement about the oGCD tank user, i didnt lay out a full blown job for you. I gave a simplistic answer. also, you have rampart for every pull as a tank, how would u not have tank stance up for every pull? i even keep up storms eye buffs between pulls, before AoEs refreshed them. im sorry, thats a problem with the tank player. next you'll tell me how DRKs who ran out of MP in HW meant that DRK was a flawed job. if u didnt have MP, there went your AoE threat, and u couldnt pull hate on the next pack of mobs. (You kept MP, or built up MP before the mobs died)

You must have never been in a dungeon run that melted mobs ultra fast if you're getting rampart every pull. My bf gets rampart every other pack (or boss) because a good group can completely annihilate a pack in about 30-45s. Also, rampart is 90s vs the 120s (2min) you mentioned in your post for your theoretical OGCD. A small difference, but in a 12 min run of a dungeon, is quite a huge chunk of time relationally.

Also, considering how low threat gen for a tank is without their stance, I was giving you a simplistic reason why your tank OGCD idea was flawed. If there's no way to guarantee it'd be up for every pull, or worse, it can be unavailable for a length of time when you'd need it for the next pack, it would be a logistical nightmare to balance it's uptime in dungeons vs uptime in raids. Developers have to account for EVERY situation when designing something, no matter how mundane. As far as your DRK example, I wouldn't count that as flawed job problem, as it had an easy solution; save some MP. Or alternatively, turn off darkside between pulls, as Unleash was immensely low cost and you'd regen enough MP between pulls to use it. Whereas a single button, which when pushed, has a Cooldown till it can be pressed again, and would provide a tank with the means to do their job, could potentially NOT be up for a pack, is an actual flaw that would need to be fixed ASAP.

I have no doubts Square thought of many ways to solve the aggro problems to promote more tanks playing the role, but they most likely just simply took a look at player behavior (dps max aggro min) and decided to save themselves from their constant balancing headaches and made the system what it is now. Let tanks have fun with their rotations and playstyles without having to worry about aggro outside of initial securing it. Let them be the tanky dps they keep trying to be. Ultimately, the official forums are but a tiny fraction of the playerbase, only Square knows how popular the new system is, as they'll have the tank played % statistics across the entire playerbase to know if their system has worked or not, while we argue on mere conjecture.

[Fynlar]

Has bad tanks and gets salty about a playstyle that was at the time objectively superior because some people were too stupid to remember they occasionally had to use Butcher's Block.

I like how you cited a warrior skill there specifically, as if you subconsciously already knew warriors tended to be a big source of the problem.

the majority of actually good tanks never let healers or DPS die.

Rosebud was the sled, Vader was Luke's father, Snape kills Dumbledore, etc.

There, helped you put a dent in the stack of other things people already know.

[Claire_Pendragon]

So if you're the game developer, you had two choices.

Third choice would have been to separate the tanks based on playstyle. Make at least 1 tank have to work for its enmity, while the rest got it for free. But in return, one of the other tanks have to work for its mitigation (with enmity/DPS being free) and the other having to work for its DPS (and enmity/mitigation being free) which gives GNB a nice "in the middle jack of all trades" identity, that it sorta already is trying to be now.

Now if a tank doesnt want to deal with enmity, they dont have to. For the players who do enjoy controlling it, they have a tank for that. (Plus I miss having enmity control on my healer/DPS, in case im stuck with a bad tank)

[MariaArvana]

Third choice would have been to separate the tanks based on playstyle. Make at least 1 tank have to work for its enmity, while the rest got it for free. But in return, one of the other tanks have to work for its mitigation (with enmity/DPS being free) and the other having to work for its DPS (and enmity/mitigation being free) which gives GNB a nice "in the middle jack of all trades" identity, that it sorta already is trying to be now.

Now if a tank doesnt want to deal with enmity, they dont have to. For the players who do enjoy controlling it, they have a tank for that. (Plus I miss having enmity control on my healer/DPS, in case im stuck with a bad tank)

There'd be a few glaring flaws with such a thing:

1) You'd have people that love the 1 tank that has to work for enmity complain about why it has to work for it when the other three don't.
2) The single tank that'd have to work for enmity would never have to work with it in 8-man content, as all you'd have to do is let any other tank build enmity, then have the hard tank voke. Done, their one weakness gone.
3) Fight design would be a mess. Do you balance mitigation around the tank who has the hardest time with it, thus causing the other three to utterly trivialize any mitigation requirements of the encounter? (I.E - Ultimates/savage floors), or do you design it around the tanks who have the easiest time with it, making it extremely difficult for the bad mitigation tank to keep up? Likewise, how do you balance dps? balance it around the tank that has to work for its dps + the tank that has to work for its enmity and thus give a huge advantage to any group that runs the other two tanks that have no issues outputting their full dps?

If they're going to adopt a system for tanks, it's gotta be all or nothing for all of them, or it just creates a whole nightmarish mess of balancing issues, compared to the very strong balance the tanks already have at the current moment. Considering that with SHB its clear they wanted to reduce the barrier of entry for newer tanks by simplifying aggro in response to how tanking ended up in SB, they made the right call. I've had a couple friends who were scared of tanking in SB actually try it this expansion and loving it due to a lot of weight being lifted off their shoulders from having to not worry (too much) about enmity.

[Claire_Pendragon]

There'd be a few glaring flaws with such a thing:

1) You'd have people that love the 1 tank that has to work for enmity complain about why it has to work for it when the other three don't.
2) The single tank that'd have to work for enmity would never have to work with it in 8-man content, as all you'd have to do is let any other tank build enmity, then have the hard tank voke. Done, their one weakness gone.
3) Fight design would be a mess. Do you balance mitigation around the tank who has the hardest time with it, thus causing the other three to utterly trivialize any mitigation requirements of the encounter? (I.E - Ultimates/savage floors), or do you design it around the tanks who have the easiest time with it, making it extremely difficult for the bad mitigation tank to keep up? Likewise, how do you balance dps? balance it around the tank that has to work for its dps + the tank that has to work for its enmity and thus give a huge advantage to any group that runs the other two tanks that have no issues outputting their full dps?

If they're going to adopt a system for tanks, it's gotta be all or nothing for all of them, or it just creates a whole nightmarish mess of balancing issues, compared to the very strong balance the tanks already have at the current moment. Considering that with SHB its clear they wanted to reduce the barrier of entry for newer tanks by simplifying aggro in response to how tanking ended up in SB, they made the right call. I've had a couple friends who were scared of tanking in SB actually try it this expansion and loving it due to a lot of weight being lifted off their shoulders from having to not worry (too much) about enmity.

1) No problem with that, they can pick a different tank, which is why the system is designed that way ^^; (Essentially 3 of the tanks would be no different than they are now)
2) Nothing wrong with that, that would be perfect teamwork by my book... but.. based on how you phrased this...
3) I think you misunderstand what I mean by "Difficult" I dont mean its inferior in ability. Like I dont mean a tank who only uses rampart, and no other mitigation. I mean stuff closer to how some jobs have longer/more complex rotations, vs those with simplistic rotations. (PLD vs DRK) Raw intuition has no prerequisites to use, but TBN requires holding onto MP, all the while the DRK is also trying to pump out that MP for DPS. (IMO these are pretty bare bones basic comparisons to what im suggesting) No one is saying DRK is struggling to handle tank busters, if anything, quite the opposite. No one is saying PLD is struggling to do good enough DPS because of its rotation. If these classes suffer from mitigation/DPS its from a completely different type of design. But due to how tanking is now designed in this game, I'd have to say the only example I could think of, is to make an oGCD that puts up the tank stance. But unlike others, it has a time limit, like 30 seconds.
but the oGCD is still on CD for... idk, 2mins? (maybe 1, im not sure) And to extend it requires another action apart of thier rotation. (But it cant be at the cost of DPS, or it has to refund it, just like how TBN refunds lost DPS) In short, its playstyle, not performance. Oldschool tanks had to suffer DPS loss for enmity control, this would need to avoid DPS loss, just as mitigation cant be at the cost of DPS either. (I'd go on about more details, such as the focus of enmity control, rather than just having to work for it.)

From a design perspective its no different than maintaining a dps buff, that has slightly different flavor. In this case, we also add mitigation or enmity flavor.
I think the current tank system is absolutely perfect for a tank who focuses primarily on DPS. (Mostly for PLD, being the most "complex" out of the 4, and GNB feels like a middle ground to an extent) I think DRK comes close to the tank who has to focus more on mitigation.
In the end, I'm glad they finally incorporated this style of tanking, as I've been saying its possible to do, despite how many people opposed it. But at the same time, I didnt want them to throw away enmity for all tanks either.

[MariaArvana]

snip

1) Not everyone wants to 'pick a different tank.' believe it or not, people like certain jobs thematically or rotation wise, and throughout this game's history, there's been plenty of threads/rants/vents about people's job they love getting shafted hard. (PLD in HW, DRK in SB, MNK and to lesser extent RDM essentially 4ever, etc.) Arbitrarily making the tank they love to play harder to play than the others enmity wise is just going to annoy many people who love the job while tickinling the itch of a potential minority. The current tank setup allows all 4 tanks to effectively do their job on all fronts, with minor variances that only come in to play in the highest of end content, compared to your theoretical setup where they'd have major variations present in all content, casual or hardcore.

2) The purpose of your setup was to make certain tanks stronger in certain aspects while weakening them in others. I was simply pointing out a quick flaw that makes the 'enmity weak tank' basically have zero weakness compared to the other 3, which is a balancing issue. A tank that has a harder rotation can't fix his damage by hitting a single button, neither can a tank that generates resources needed for mitigation slower can speed it up by hitting one button, whereas provoke would knock out the enmity weak tank's issue, leaving it with only its strengths. WAR from 2.1-5.0 has historically shown that when your job has all the strengths with basically none of the weaknesses or almost non-issue weaknesses, it becomes the desired tank and inevitably forces another tank onto the bench. (PLD in HW, DRK to a lesser extent in SB). With how close in balance the tanks currently are, I'd rather not they invest in a system that could easily re-create such days.

3) The Inner Release debate in SB is proof enough that people aren't very fond of one job having to execute tons of weaving/optimizations in order to achieve its max dps threshold (SB DRK), vs a job that can unga bunga spam and deal just as much, if not more damage for basically zero effort (WAR). Rotation complexity should be pretty standardized across all tanks which honestly, is something they still need to work on a bit.


Aggro management by itself is intrinsically boring, it's just a simple binary yes/no system, and for any skilled tank during SB, it basically didn't exist due to how absurdly broken WAR was at generating it, combined with shirk use. Focus should shift away from aggro and more towards fun aggro-based mechanics for the tanks to deal with, like:

-the aggro drops in Neo-Exdeath
-more boss mechanics that target #2 hate instead of #1, making control of the fight who's MT/OT at certain times more important than it is currently.
-a phase where aggro gets dropped and then inverted, so the tanks want to drop tank stance to stay at #7 & #8 to keep aggro
-boss randomly swaps #1 & #2 hate through the fight right before certain mechanics/tank busters, placing more emphasis on pre-emptive planning mitigation & positioning.

The thing about your OGCD stance idea is that it inherently limits fight design by its nature, or becomes irrelevant. What if they wanted to design a boss that constant auto'd #1 -2 in hate throughout the fight forcing both tanks to pop their ogcd at the beginning, but quickly into a fight, they wanted to spawn an add around the time after the OGCD wears off? And if you can refresh it by using stuff, then how would it be designed to be refreshed without making it completely irrelevant and permanently up (DRK' darkside as an example), without it also being a dps loss? If you make the refresh too forgiving, then it might as well have never existed, and if you make it too harsh, you just run into the same situation as SB where bad tanks were constantly losing aggro, and is just an extra thing they had to keep up and failure to do so gets the healer/dps eaten alive and having the tank get yelled at, potentially scaring them off the role and completely defeating the purpose Square intended with making tanking easier? It's a much more complex solution with tons of variables that would require much more dev time to balance than the eloquently simple solution they have now.

Also, a tank stance OGCD would be a logistical nightmare for dungeon groups. "Okay, lemme pop my tank stance and - oh, everything's dead in 25s, my stance fell off and can't refresh it, and now I can't gain aggro on the next pack due to the OGCD being on cd for another 1:30." At that point, the group either pulls and lets the dps/healers tank, or waits 1:30 for the tank to get his stance back. (oops)

[HeulGDarian]

Im pretty sure im the only one Who liked stance dancing. The thing is all those spells for enmity were utilised by everyone not Just the tank, the tank Just had the most control over it. People say it was Just one aggro combo then dps all the way, but i remember my little casual ass struggling to mt when the other tank was better, i had to coordinate with them to provoke then shirk me for a boost Just so that i could keep mting, also if the dps was good and you were watching edge ever closer you would need to put on your tank stance and do aggro combo a bit, the reason it got removed was from my understanding, good players didnt really care, bad or newer players found it a headache and too much of a hassle. The thing is that not only was the system not replaced by something else game play wise, it also took all the different buffs and spells tied to the stance. Sure pld lost Jack shit and drk only lost the haste but got reworked so Who cares, but warrior got screwed the most. He was the one with the different tank stance that made him unique, inner beast was also such a good skill that reflected what a warrior is, lvl 80 warrior is basicly a gutted version of the lvl 70 one trying to add all the buffs he lost and he still misses some. Removing the stances was one thing, not replacing and destroying identity in the process is another.







Also a bit of a personal request. Give me back my shirk, i cant troll my friend with the New aggro mechanics D:<