Can we please get aggro management back?

[Fynlar]

DRK's also cost a GCD IIRC but DRK's didnt and dont stance dance. they had both at all times.

I definitely remember seeing some DRKs trying to remove Grit after establishing hate though, in exactly the same sort of way some PLDs might have tried swapping to Sword Oath. It's just that you were far, far more likely to see WARs doing this, mainly because of the whole "Defiance doesn't reduce damage" thing (at least that was the reason I constantly remember seeing mentioned on the forums for why WARs hated being in Defiance), but I imagine not having to miss a GCD like PLD did was a pretty nice incentive too. That and maybe WAR was just most likely to attract the whole "DPS tank" mentality for some reason, idk.

Regarding DRK and Grit specifically, like I said I don't remember DRK back then too well, but it might also have been that activating Grit consumed a GCD but deactivating it did not, meaning that so long as you didn't have to reactivate Grit in the middle of combat, DRK wasn't losing any GCDs from it, unlike PLDs who had to actually swap stances and therefore use a GCD. I don't know if it was like that for DRK in Stormblood though; anyone who is more well versed in it can feel free to correct, because I'm quite possibly wrong.

Ultimately Tanking has lost any sense of actual tanking and all we are is just a weaker dps with more defense.

Isn't that basically the core of what a tank has always been, though? You say that like it's a newfound problem with tanking in this game, but to me it basically reads off as "business as usual, then"

The only real difference is that in the past, tanks had to, in one way or another and to some degree or another, sacrifice some of their maximum damage output in order to actually effectively perform their role (whether that meant keeping aggro or not getting themselves killed). And let's face it; given a choice between having to do that or being able to do their maximum possible damage, it's not hard to guess what most people in this game would want to do. (If you were in my shoes during Stormblood in particular, it would not be hard to guess what most people in this game did anyway, even in cases when they shouldn't have.)

[Melichoir]

Isn't that basically the core of what a tank has always been, though? You say that like it's a newfound problem with tanking in this game, but to me it basically reads off as "business as usual, then"

The only real difference is that in the past, tanks had to, in one way or another and to some degree or another, sacrifice some of their maximum damage output in order to actually effectively perform their role (whether that meant keeping aggro or not getting themselves killed). And let's face it; given a choice between having to do that or being able to do their maximum possible damage, it's not hard to guess what most people in this game would want to do. (If you were in my shoes during Stormblood in particular, it would not be hard to guess what most people in this game did anyway, even in cases when they shouldn't have.)

Except this wasnt exactly true. Aggro management between casual content and raid content was different, something that people typically dont make distinctions about. In casual content, slap that tank stance on and never lose aggro. Yeah if you wanted to push more damage, youd drop it, but in casual content there was never a need to do this. There was almost never a DPS check or mechanic in a boss fight that would require you to really need that tank stance off. People chose to go the "Do aggro combo once, drop tank stance and DPS" in casual content cause "It's what the cool kids do." or "I can shave off a minute or so off my 20 minute dungeon run if I just do that extra bit of damage" and not because the game necessitated it. And frankly the player base was stupid about this on both ends of it - You had the raiders who chastised casuals who didnt drop tank stance in a dungeon cause "You dont need it on" so they can get through things a small bit faster, and you had casuals who copied the concepts of raider strats without fully understanding that you need to do proper dps and what not to keep aggro if you dont have tank stance on.

Now you go to Savage content, yeah, threat management and beating DPS checks was a lot more prominent. You want to maximize dps, using threat dumps, voke shirking, dropping tank stance, etc was all a part of it. But at that level of play, youre gonna need more overall competence in playing your class.

Now the solution is "Turn on tank stance, have threat" and thats it. Voke if you need a tank swap. Shirk is semi redundent currently cause voke generally does the job efficiently enough unless your a tank that out damages your cotank by a decent margin. This isnt threat management and just solidifies the position that tanks are just a DPS with more health and a CD. As a whole, the role is too simplistic. No positionals, tank CDs are literally "Push button to mitigate", threat isnt a thing to worry about, and depending on the tank, there is little in the way of rotation.

[Fluffernuff]

Youre correct on grit. dropping grit didnt consume a GCD. The same is true for Shield oath, too. The only difference is that when DRK dropped grit, they already had darkside up. PLD still had to use Sword Oath regardless. I remember a big thing for PLD was to either eat the GCD to swap directly into sword oath, or to simply drop shield oath and try to weave in sword oath when you were forced to lose uptime anyway, like a ranged phase or when a boss went invuln.

stormblood kind of made that a little.... bad to do though, because dropping shield oath killed your gauge in it's entirety

[Fynlar]

Youre correct on grit. dropping grit didnt consume a GCD. The same is true for Shield oath, too. The only difference is that when DRK dropped grit, they already had darkside up. PLD still had to use Sword Oath regardless. I remember a big thing for PLD was to either eat the GCD to swap directly into sword oath, or to simply drop shield oath and try to weave in sword oath when you were forced to lose uptime anyway, like a ranged phase or when a boss went invuln.

stormblood kind of made that a little.... bad to do though, because dropping shield oath killed your gauge in it's entirety

Hadn't actually thought about the whole "drop ShO and swap SwO during downtime" thing, haha. Probably because my mind simply never thought about dps optimization to that severe of a degree.

But yeah, I'm guessing there were some people that did that. Because PLD's gauge wasn't/isn't actually used for anything except defensive maneuvers that don't actually contribute to your damage dealt... I'm sure that to some people it was deemed acceptable loss -_-

[MariaArvana]

Hadn't actually thought about the whole "drop ShO and swap SwO during downtime" thing, haha. Probably because my mind simply never thought about dps optimization to that severe of a degree.

But yeah, I'm guessing there were some people that did that. Because PLD's gauge wasn't/isn't actually used for anything except defensive maneuvers that don't actually contribute to your damage dealt... I'm sure that to some people it was deemed acceptable loss -_-

Very, very minor nitpick, but in SB PLD still had shield swipe, which while directly didn't use the oath gauge, many PLDs used excess gauge on Shelltrons to guarantee blocks to use shield swipe for extra damage optimization instead of banking on RNG to proc a block for shield swipe.

[Fluffernuff]

yeah, i remember it being more of a HW thing than a SB thing. but those days are fuzzy to me as well.

sword oath optimizing aside, it definitely was NOT the gauge controversy of 4.0, which was the point of the discussion I quoted.


and failing to mention how that was specifically and only beast gauge on WAR is bordering on misinformation. And in that particular case, the fact WAR actually lost resources for doing what it had to do was.... bad. really bad. it led to far more than just 1 lost GCD, especially over the course of a fight. Contrary to the fell cleave meta, a good WAR didnt want to be locked and forced into Deliverance, even in the heights of 4.X

[Fynlar]

Very, very minor nitpick, but in SB PLD still had shield swipe, which while directly didn't use the oath gauge, many PLDs used excess gauge on Shelltrons to guarantee blocks to use shield swipe for extra damage optimization instead of banking on RNG to proc a block for shield swipe.

I did forget about that one, thanks. I know at some point they put a cooldown on Shield Swipe though, probably specifically because of this, but once again I forget exactly when that was instituted.

[Fluffernuff]

Alright, so all I've really done is jump on one statement I simply wanted to give much more context to, but I'll take a crack at the actual discussion.

I'll get my thoughs more succinctly out of the way first;
I agree that enmity mechanics can be far more engaging. HOWEVER, if you truly believe what we had before was more engaging, then you are either looking through rose tinted glasses or werent there to play through it.

Now I know it's a bit of a hot take to throw some people's feelings under the bus like that, however...

To be absolutely frank, if you left your tank stance on, threat was never even an issue. leaving tank stance on during ARR, HW, and SB is and was exactly the same as it is now. Threat become a complete non-factor.

Threat only became interesting after the higher tier of players started pushing DPS optimization that threat management from others even became more valuable. Threat was only interesting after we removed tanking stance from the formula entirely. However, all of this "interesting gameplay" came from everyone EXCEPT the tank. The tank didnt play any differently. the DPS did. And thats if the tanks were either newer to raiding, lesser geared, or flubbed the opener.

Frankly speaking, this is why NIN was so evergreen. Everyone dogpiles on TA, but Shadewalker and smokescreen were EXTREMELY valued, not only for the opener, but to nearly remove the need for other DPS to manage aggro.
NIN completely controlled who had aggro, and last I checked, NIN wasnt a tank.




all this to say:
I agree with your guys' idea. But it's frustrating to watch you barking up the wrong trees. We need to move forward, not regress. From a tanking perspective, HW/SB enmity is 100% regression. We need something... else to make things more interesting. As an aside, I feel the tanking ROLE right now is in a bit of an identity crisis.

[Melichoir]

snip snips

I am personally not looking at it through rose tinted glasses, Im just weighing pro and con gameplay. By no stretch of the imagination do I think that HW or SB threat management was the pinnacle of perfection. I remember times when things were stupid where I would have threat issues as a DRK in HW, even with grit and gear and etc. It wasnt common, but there were a few occassions for it. Usually when paired with Savage raiders who go ham. But the issues then was more to do with numbers than with mechanics themselves. Modifying numbers would resolve some of the issues in casual play.

But that system was actually a system. What we have now is..well nothing. We dont have anything. Pressing 1 button to tank isnt a system. In a 4 man dungeon, there is 0 reason to not have tank stance on. In a normal 8 man trial or raid, you can leave tank stance on and just spam shirk on CD and be fine 99% of the time. Its only in savage where things can get squiffy.

[Fynlar]

Except this wasnt exactly true. Aggro management between casual content and raid content was different, something that people typically dont make distinctions about.

I don't really know (or care) about raid content. I don't do that stuff.

All I can speak about was what I was doing, which is usually DF roulettes, and in said DF, I was seeing problems.

As a whole, the role is too simplistic. No positionals, tank CDs are literally "Push button to mitigate", threat isnt a thing to worry about, and depending on the tank, there is little in the way of rotation.

You say that, but I am currently living with someone who is utterly terrified of the tank role far more than either of the other two, because it means they have to take more of a "leader" role in dungeons, and they very easily get lost or turned around without other people to follow.

This sort of thing really depends on your perspective.

As for the tank CD thing in serious content, IMO the tank role was all about figuring out how to most effectively space out your CDs and swaps. The few times I have dabbled in easier ex/savage content, I distinctly remember having to actually coordinate with the other tank when would be the best time to pop our invulns, for instance. Or, sometimes big attacks do not have a charge bar or a clear telegraph, meaning you need to learn the patterns of the fight to be able to know when to have popped a CD in advance.

Sure, once you learn it and figure out the optimal way of doing things for your group, it becomes monotonous, but what doesn't feel like that in this game after enough time/practice? It isn't only tank stuff that suffers from this.