Is there a way to keep tank stance on until I turn it off?

[Avatre]

The reason tank stances can't be in that category is because there are levels where you don't have a tank stance and keeping it would mean you still have the stance at levels you are not supposed to. Those levels are extremely low, obviously.

That may have been the case before, but now all tanks have it at level 10. Though, having the toggle is still a good thing especially in AR when someone might decide to stand inside the group of people and not move when a boss has cleave attacks, and they may end up with being the main tank.

[Jeeqbit]

That may have been the case before, but now all tanks have it at level 10. Though, having the toggle is still a good thing especially in AR when someone might decide to stand inside the group of people and not move when a boss has cleave attacks, and they may end up with being the main tank.

This may seem stupid, but you can sync to below level 10 in certain fates and quest battles, and that's actually why they can't do it.

[Tiramu]

Well, yeah I agree with that. Both carbuncle and tank stances are virtually relics of an older system. One Square likely doesn't know how to get around. If you condensed the classes further, you'd basically have the same thing you have now.

What I pointed out was really that tank stances aren't required to do your job to a certain point, especially if you just raised. Provoke's there and it's 25% aggro, regardless of stance. Carbuncle is an absolute thorn on my backside and Square's a dolt for keeping it. It's literally useless, not even for the shield anymore which I can't use while Egis or Demis are up. But I need it there, or I can't even call Egis nor Demis.

The only thing I'd be wary of would be how you'd safely establish which tank was main tank. But aggro combos can deal with that.

Whether or not Square can do anything good with it is a different story. Especially given their track record lately which has been...

Okay, fair enough I get you.

[Avatre]

This may seem stupid, but you can sync to below level 10 in certain fates and quest battles, and that's actually why they can't do it.

Ah, fair enough. I keep forgetting about things that are outside the roulettes for low level things.

[Kewitt]

It should be reversed and reduce hate generation on tanks. Honestly it shouldn't be a thing. Between provoke changes and shirk it shouldn't matter.

I don't know how many time I shirk the off tank in normal 8 person content just so they are 2nd on hate. Incase something goes side ways.

They could also just make tank hate combo without stance higher then dps and healers 2x generation without stance and 10x with stance.

[Raoabolic]

That's good. I'd hate to have to deal with that on top of getting them to voke properly during certain busters.

Dumbing down something isn't a good response to problems like this but considering the "no player left behind" direction the game is crashing towards makes this problem tough to tackle. Perhaps we should ask the healers if "streamlining" class architypes is a good idea. :^)

[Shurrikhan]

They could bring back aggro combos.

Let's not. Truly. It was a painfully wasteful mechanic. Each tank had to spend 3-7 buttons on what was ultimately solely a mini-game of "How well can I calculate how high the peak DPS enmity will go before the enemy dies and trim my opening GCDs before dropping tank stance accordingly?"

DRKs have been asking for their old finisher for years.

Because it looks cooler and could be used as a way to give DRK more than just the 1-2-3 combo and an alternate spender after 2 in every 5 combos. Not for an enmity combo that'd be used only a few times per fight (before essentially hot-swapping that combo off one's bars as not to have said bars bloated by it).

The issue is that then people might end up easily competing for Aggro (not that it doesn't happen nowadays...), and people will hard-focus DPS instead of grabbing aggro.

Most will grab aggro, because it's higher rDPS to do so than to chance the boss nuking a DPS during their opener. That's not the issue so much as that "fighting for aggro" after the first moments of a fight or add spawn is a pretty damn boring maintenance mechanic given how shallowly it's ever manipulated in this game and is very expensive to support in any way XIV would think to attempt.

But honestly, while not perfect, I did like the system they had in Stormblood. Especially with stuff like Diversion, which forced the DPS to also have some responsibility when it came to group content. But given the way the game's designed now and their philosophy, I understand why it's no longer the case. Seems to me they want a pick-up-and-play style rather than having to rely on team effort.

Diversion was removed because it was bloat, in much the same fashion as Invigorate. You just hit in on CD for a subtle rDPS gain if any only if you will be 2nd highest threat anyways and all other DPS are likewise mitigating their enmity, too. Which badly conflicted with the way enmity window maximization worked for tanks, since they'd want to estimate likely enmity totals over the fight right from the start, and they kind of had to (erroneously at times) assume their Damage-Dealers weren't idiots.

Tanks could use more to do, and current tank stance is still rather wasteful, but a return to enmity combos is not the answer. It's way too button-inefficient.

[Midareyukki]

Let's not. Truly. (...)
Tanks could use more to do, and current tank stance is still rather wasteful, but a return to enmity combos is not the answer. It's way too button-inefficient.

I mean, I didn't mention it as gospel. I'm pretty sure I mentioned it here already, but my overall thoughts on enmity combos are like... they're an answer, but they're not the best answer. If anything because then we'd be back to people and tank rotations, about how tank openers do less damage because they're forced to generate aggro and all that headache. Hell, remember back when WARs completely ignored their tank combos and just spent stuff like Equilibrium to gain bursts of aggro? It's the same thing. Not only would they be unused, if they had to be used, they'd push rotations out and cause issues all over again.

What I meant was "well, if we're going to cut out on the tank stance, and if we don't want people to constantly compete for aggro willy-nilly, then having those skills might be best".

Naturally there are alternatives. If anything, make the tank stance a buff, where your normal combo gains aggro multipliers. The only thing impeding it would be pulling the bosses itself, since you'll want a bit of aggro beforehand, and it could be a waste of the buff's timer, even if milliseconds.

On a second read, yes, I did mention it. It just wasn't as clear. It also happened to be the sentences just after where you decided to crop.

They could bring back aggro combos. DRKs have been asking for their old finisher for years. The issue is that then people might end up easily competing for Aggro (not that it doesn't happen nowadays...), and people will hard-focus DPS instead of grabbing aggro.

Because I remember the times when we had the two combos and people felt irritated for having to press that combo just for aggro rather than the thing that maximized damage. Was really the only thing that came to mind when people said "let's do away with tank stances". Because then where would you put an aggro multiplier? Even what I said about a potential buff can cause issues. Such as "Oh, my opener is nowhere near as bursty. DRK, you pull with the buff up.", which can be perceived by some people as the class being weaker.

[Shurrikhan]

On a second read, yes, I did mention it. It just wasn't as clear. It also happened to be the sentences just after where you decided to crop.

Your only sentence that followed what I quoted was on Cleric Stance. See the [HB] block.

What I meant was "well, if we're going to cut out on the tank stance, and if we don't want people to constantly compete for aggro willy-nilly, then having those skills might be best".

Except, enmity combos would then replace one convenient oGCD with 2-3 additional GCD keys of otherwise zero purpose. And the thing is, you don't even need an action by which to replace tank stance. You need only buff Provoke to, say, apply an aura (hidden or otherwise) that increases enmity taken from the afflicter, or to have the tank enmity bonus be positionally dependent (only, say, 5x bonus from the rear, 7x from flank, and the 10x from the front).

You don't need to replace unnecessary action A with unnecessary action B, let alone C and D atop it.

Naturally there are alternatives. If anything, make the tank stance a buff, where your normal combo gains aggro multipliers.

Don't make it specific to one's combo(s); else, one will no longer be able to gather with Flood, ranged attacks, etc. Just apply it to tanks across the board. There's no point in forcing the raid to delay their damage; there's no need to arbitrarily restrict the enmity aura buff to just a few tank actions.

[Midareyukki]

Your only sentence that followed what I quoted was on Cleric Stance. See the [HB] block.

Okay, why spoiler that though? Especially when you acknowledge the problem I pointed out with the idea? Like, what you did was specifically:

[Maybe we could do this...]
No! Absolutely not, there are flaws!
<Spoilers>
[...but there are flaws]
then let's discuss them
</Spoilers>

...just saying, the formatting is a little bit weird. Makes it come across like I'm the idiot for not realizing it unless you choose to "read more", whereas you had the bright idea to point out it's flawed. When in reality, no, I pointed it out, you're just being redundant and adding shady formatting. But you do you.

And no? I wrote a fair bit before getting into Cleric Stance. Heck, the Cleric Stance bit was separated by a quote to someone else. It had nothing to do with this. Basically I don't understand what you mean by "Your only sentence that followed what I quoted was on Cleric Stance" because... no it was not? It was a whopping paragraph, and the talk about Cleric came way later in another section on the post.

Except, enmity combos would then replace one convenient oGCD with 2-3 additional GCD keys of otherwise zero purpose. And the thing is, you don't even need an action by which to replace tank stance. You need only buff Provoke to, say, apply an aura (hidden or otherwise) that increases enmity taken from the afflicter, or to have the tank enmity bonus be positionally dependent (only, say, 5x bonus from the rear, 7x from flank, and the 10x from the front).

You don't need to replace unnecessary action A with unnecessary action B, let alone C and D atop it.

I mean, at the end of the day, it's still going to be a buff. But if it's applied to Provoke, then at least that gives it a bit more to the pulling as well. Good shout, honestly.
But it wasn't just one GCD, it was two on some tanks. They replaced two GCDs with it.

Don't make it specific to one's combo(s); else, one will no longer be able to gather with Flood, ranged attacks, etc. Just apply it to tanks across the board. There's no point in forcing the raid to delay their damage; there's no need to arbitrarily restrict the enmity aura buff to just a few tank actions.

Yeah but won't that also end up causing that "DRK, you do more than I do, both in APM and in damage, you pull" scenarios?