Enmity Management, Do we want it back?

[kuroashi_sanji]

But the old enmity system wouldn't change that at all. You just established enmity at the start, then swapped for the rest of the fight. You now have your enmity combo which is taking up button space which could be used for something else.

However, the question should be, why do you think enmity is the only thing that could be added that would make tanks interesting? Especially when, looking back on it, it done no such thing.

Well, I don't like enmity management so much tbh, I think is a okay mechanic, but I only want more GCD for tanks, you know, doing 1-2-3 the entire fight is boring as hell, so that's why I want it back.
If SE don't bring back enmity management, but add more GCD to tanks, complexity and identity for them, I would be happy in either situation. I just want have fun with XIV like before ShB.

[CKNovel]

Yes please, tank are now just blue DPS with boring rotation.

They were already except the tank stance had a 20% damage down.
So people tried their best to avoid putting the tank stance on. Except it needed the other players to press their buttons and guess what, they didn't and still won't.
So SQEX removed the damage down. And this is where we are.

I don't want ARR/HW/SB Enmity management back, I just wish Shirk had a lower cooldown and would also transfer your enmity to the target for a few seconds.

[Mekhana]

Emnity is a joke now since a lone WAR can early pull a S-rank and easily stay aggroed over 100 other tanks

[ijuakos_xqwzts]

Yo fellow tanks, it’s as the title says do we want enmity management back? If so how should we go about it? Would we still keep Tank stance? Or are things better the way they are now? Personally I think things are okay the way they are, but I would certainly be open to the idea of putting more enmity responsibility on the tank, it would just have to be better balanced than in StB(that’s when I started, maybe I was just new and it was a skill issue, not sure tbh). Maybe Provoke could have a shorter cooldown, Flash(and other tanks equivalent) could have a bigger radius and maybe be oGCD, and maybe other select skills could have increased enmity generation. Anyways what do you guys think?

Take away provoke. Too many bad tanks think they have to hit it every time it's off cooldown, the worst one being last night when the other tank kept dying and provoking Shiva to cleave the rest of the raid. Shirk works just fine for tank swap mechanics.

[aodhan_ofinnegain]

Howso?

If the tank is doing damage, they're 60% of a DPS. Say them doing the agro rotation makes them 55%. Meanwhile, your BLM gets the gear and is doing 115% of the damage they were doing before. Tank -5%, BLM +15%, party net +10%. The group damage output is still greater.

It's the same argument for a Healer using a GCD on healing to keep a DPS alive. One lost Glare will NEVER be equal to the lost DPS of the DPSer dying. Sometimes, it's so lopsided the WHM casting Cure 2 instead of Glare on the BLM so the BLM can stand there and finish that Flare cast is enough of a DPS gain that it makes it worth doing. If your DPSer getting gear is doing enough damage to rip agro off the Tank, it SHOULD be enough damage that it's a party DPS increase even with the Tank switching to a lower damage agro rotation.

You ask how, so but you did the maths to show a lesser overall DPS output the moment you used a minus lmao

My point which is apparently oblivious to you is if MT has to be in a stance that sacrifices damage to generate more enmity, and use a lesser damage combo in the beginning of the fight where everyone bursts and pots, you're 3 GCD behind in your rotation for pretty much the rest of the fight. But the OT doesn't have to sacrifice damage, and is sync'd up with raid buffs seems pretty unfair.

And using healers as an example is poor as one GCD here or there doesn't disrupt an entire rotation, and more often than not healers, overloaded oGCD suit will cover most fights if used correctly to mitigate potential damage loss, the MT and the beginning of the fight does not have that option it's an arbitrary loss for no valuable gameplay added.

[Renathras]

You ask how, so but you did the maths to show a lesser overall DPS output the moment you used a minus lmao

My point which is apparently oblivious to you is if MT has to be in a stance that sacrifices damage to generate more enmity, and use a lesser damage combo in the beginning of the fight where everyone bursts and pots, you're 3 GCD behind in your rotation for pretty much the rest of the fight. But the OT doesn't have to sacrifice damage, and is sync'd up with raid buffs seems pretty unfair.

And using healers as an example is poor as one GCD here or there doesn't disrupt an entire rotation, and more often than not healers, overloaded oGCD suit will cover most fights if used correctly to mitigate potential damage loss, the MT and the beginning of the fight does not have that option it's an arbitrary loss for no valuable gameplay added.

...

Okay, look, if you aren't going to be serious, then there's no point continuing the conversation.

[Shurrikhan]

You ask how, so but you did the maths to show a lesser overall DPS output the moment you used a minus lmao

The clear point there was that Job A losing some damage to provide some buff or secondary output instead doesn't necessarily (or even likely) equate to party DPS going down. See Dragoon vs. Samurai, for instance. Battle Litany existing, in place of greater direct DRG damage, does not fundamentally decrease the party's DPS. There's no reason to assume that content wouldn't be tuned to lower HP or DPS tuned to higher output in exchange for tanks being expected to use damage-sacrificing enmity actions.

I don't even want Enmity actions back, and it still makes plenty of sense.

My point which is apparently oblivious to you is if MT has to be in a stance that sacrifices damage to generate more enmity, and use a lesser damage combo in the beginning of the fight where everyone bursts and pots, you're 3 GCD behind in your rotation for pretty much the rest of the fight. But the OT doesn't have to sacrifice damage, and is sync'd up with raid buffs seems pretty unfair.

You don't delay your pot just because you're using your Enmity skills. They're Enmity have multipliers, not flat Enmity bonuses; the more damage you're doing, via the pot, the more Enmity you put out. So unless you'd overcap Enmity within the minimum amount of time for which you could increase your Enmity done (e.g., a single GCD or a single Enmity combo), it'd make zero difference to your pacing. Having +20% damage via pot/raidbuffs affecting an Enmity skill means you'll need that % appgcd less of an Enmity skill later on.

And using healers as an example is poor as one GCD here or there doesn't disrupt an entire rotation, and more often than not healers, overloaded oGCD suit will cover most fights if used correctly to mitigate potential damage loss, the MT and the beginning of the fight does not have that option it's an arbitrary loss for no valuable gameplay added.

Neither did Enmity skills disrupt rotation. There was always room aplenty around them and/or they literally shared roots with the other combo actions.

I disliked them because they were button bloat, providing very little gameplay compared to their button cost, but what you're suggesting would be an issue... was never an issue, even in the incredibly far from polished version we had previously.

[Absurdity]

Neither did Enmity skills disrupt rotation. There was always room aplenty around them and/or they literally shared roots with the other combo actions.

Yes and no. They could potentially disrupt Paladin's rotation since the enmity combo did not regenerate any MP and if we go with aodhan's example of having to use your enmity combo at the start of the fight (which wasn't really the case historically) they would disrupt your opener.

[Shurrikhan]

Yes and no. They could potentially disrupt Paladin's rotation since the enmity combo did not regenerate any MP and if we go with aodhan's example of having to use your enmity combo at the start of the fight (which wasn't really the case historically) they would disrupt your opener.

Even then, you started the fight with full MP, so even if you opened with Flash, using 1 or 2 RoHs in place of all RAs between GBs could not delay your Req phase (which wasn't used until after your entire FoF phase anyways, especially if MT).

[Absurdity]

Even then, you started the fight with full MP, so it could not delay your Req phase (which wasn't used until after your entire FoF phase anyways, especially if MT).

I probably should've made it clearer that I was talking about two different scenarios here, scenario one being the use of your Enmity combo back in the day and scenario two being a theoretical with our current 6.0 kits.
1. Your Rage of Halone combo could disrupt your rotation later into the fight when you aren't sitting on full MP (back when Req needed 80% MP to function properly).

2. Using your enmity combo in the opener would mostly disrupt Dark Knight and Warrior nowadays and that is assuming we would bring those combos back as they were in Stormblood, where Butcher's Block would leave you 10 gauge short of a Fell Cleave and consequently unable to do a 3rd Inner Chaos under your pot and Power Slash would leave Dark Knight lacking in MP and Blood.

It would be even more nonsensical if you had to immediately do an enmity combo since that would mean warrior would have to delay Eye of the Storm and Inner Release by 3 GCDs.