[Discuss] Bringing back mitigation-damage interaction

[Zairava]

This was a core thing we lost that I believe could come back, since enmity management as a whole is something most of the playerbase does not want to return.

I thought about this during a boring shift some days ago, and thought I'd ask:

If they were to bake in enmity management, would you accept bringing back both DPS and Tank stance, given that you are provided a means to reduce enmity generation as a role action? If not, how would you go about bringing back mit-dmg interaction?

[Shurrikhan]

Being able to trade opportunity between sustain and damage requires only that: an ability to make that trade.

That could, but needn't necessarily, include stances. That could, but needn't necessarily, include shared resource costs (e.g., Inner Beast vs. Fell Cleave). Hell, it could boil down to little more than timing, wherein if you use a nuke from the front of a boss, part of your would-be damage is instead spent to reduce the damage prepared by their incoming attack.

All of which... is separate from Enmity, so I'm not sure why that's entering the picture here. And I certainly don't want to see a return of actions like Diversion as it was in Stormblood.

_______

DAILY CAP EDIT:

This is why any action where you have to choose between a defensive benefit or an offensive benefit will always come out on the offensive side, unless the defensive side is required to survive, but then it isn't really a choice as you are forced into it.

We will always choose, within given constraints, whatever produces the most long-term throughput (i.e., whatever value clears the fight). But that does not mean the tank's offensive choice will always be the best choice regardless of incoming damage, even when that damage wouldn't kill them.

The crux is that the equation for solving best rDPS doesn't involve only the tank; it also involves their healer(s). If healers, for instance, had less of their total (both offensive and curative) ppm locked into healing CDs and instead had greater potency-per-GCD (which they could then choose to use as they see fit), then a defensive resource spent to afford a healer 400 extra offensive relative-potency (a Dosis III even now is 429 relative potency, due to Healer's +30% damage trait) by spending one fewer GCD heal on you is going to be worth more than doing an extra 300 relative-potency of damage yourself.

[Zairava]

Being able to trade opportunity between sustain and damage requires only that: an ability to make that trade.

That could, but needn't necessarily, include stances. That could, but needn't necessarily, include shared resource costs (e.g., Inner Beast vs. Fell Cleave). Hell, it could boil down to little more than timing, wherein if you use a nuke from the front of a boss, part of your would-be damage is instead spent to reduce the damage prepared by their incoming attack.

All of which... is separate from Enmity, so I'm not sure why that's entering the picture here. And I certainly don't want to see a return of actions like Diversion as it was in Stormblood.

Agreed. Especially on the timing part. As long as there is a cost-reward to make the trade between damage and defense I'd be happy with it. I just happen to like stances a lot so it's easier for me to use those as examples.

Fair on nothing like Diversion, listing the baked-in enmity so that there was no issues with people who dislike that sacrifice, but seeing as how we get so much of it, and the fact we still have provoke anyway, in hindsight I'm not sure why it would matter.

I'm currently trying to draft out what benefits these stances could provide..but they could honestly make them 1 to 1 copies of their Stormblood integrations and I'd be satisfied. The real thinker is what to do with Gunbreaker dps and tank stances since it was added with Shadowbringers.

[Mikey_R]

What could however still be a choice is when you want to use it, which would at least add another decision to make in any fight. If I have to eventually use my defensive stance to survive, when is the best time to do so and when is it better to use my cooldowns while staying in offensive stance?

Granted this would only be temporary as well because people will quickly have mapped out the best timings for any encounter/party composition.

But why has it got to the point where you need your defensive stance to survive and how strong is this stance? Tanks have a plethora of defensive tools available, all of which should be considered before you even get to thinking about a defensive stance. Bear in mind as well, fights are (currently) designed so that you do not run out, which I believe also includes ignoring the fact tanks have invulns. The moment you design a fight to tear through all of those, just to force you into defensive stance, would that really be fun? or would it feel forced? Yes, I am currently forced to use defensive cooldowns to survive a tank buster, but I do not lose offensive benefit, but if I was forced inti defence stance just for the mitigation to survive a hit, at the cost of my offence, that feels worse, at least to me (back to what I keep saying that it feels like a punishment system rather than a reward system).

Also, just because I don't visit topics unless there is a new post, I think I missed this:

We will always choose, within given constraints, whatever produces the most long-term throughput (i.e., whatever value clears the fight). But that does not mean the tank's offensive choice will always be the best choice regardless of incoming damage, even when that damage wouldn't kill them.

The crux is that the equation for solving best rDPS doesn't involve only the tank; it also involves their healer(s). If healers, for instance, had less of their total (both offensive and curative) ppm locked into healing CDs and instead had greater potency-per-GCD (which they could then choose to use as they see fit), then a defensive resource spent to afford a healer 400 extra offensive relative-potency (a Dosis III even now is 429 relative potency, due to Healer's +30% damage trait) by spending one fewer GCD heal on you is going to be worth more than doing an extra 300 relative-potency of damage yourself.

So, to make a point, you adjust how healers work. Which is fair, but if we are going to look at how adjusting things can potentially change the interactions, we need to look at everything, ie. tanks defensive kits, do they have enough to survive (before considering tank stance), what is the incoming damage to tanks, not just via mechanics, if we are tying more healing to GCDs, would this then be something that is more expected across all content, so that every GCD is not a damage GCD? etc.

With so many variables, you can see why changing one thing to make it better suit a particular narrative (whether intentional or not) can come across as a bit disingenuous. Why just change the one thing when there is so much more that needs to be considered. However, it still doesn't change the fact that the only time you would use it is when you are forced into it. Which, as I mentioned above, doesn't necessarily feel good.

[Shurrikhan]

Why just change the one thing when there is so much more that needs to be considered. However, it still doesn't change the fact that the only time you would use it is when you are forced into it. Which, as I mentioned above, doesn't necessarily feel good.

My response literally pointed to any such change to make optional mitigation worthwhile without relying on gimmicks being largely impossible in isolation, and was specifically on when at-cost defensives would be optimal even when you are not "forced" (do or die) into them.

Tanks sustain's rDPS is the healer offensive value thereby afforded, because they are the only ones affected by its difference. You, as the tank, could exploit ("optional") percentile sustain around high incoming damage density in order to spare (the opportunity cost of) flat healer sustain for a net increase to party damage.

If the opportunities afforded through at-cost mitigation aren't worthwhile, then neither can that mitigation's costs ever be worthwhile outside of "consume would-be offensive resources, or die (which is a further DPS loss)." So yes, healer kits will be involved, too.

So, to make a point, you adjust how healers work.

It's not merely "to make a point". That literally is how any optional defensive value works. If the fight is won by reducing enemy units' HP to 0, all other outputs besides damage will necessarily be weighed around how much damage their contribution allows for. Positioning enemies, preventing deaths, even safety measures to reduce cognitive load -- it's all ultimately about what wins that fight.

With so many variables, you can see why changing one thing to make it better suit a particular narrative (whether intentional or not) can come across as a bit disingenuous.

...Everything else is already accounted for. Tank sustain already includes all of their pre-alloted / "free" means of sustain. Any "optional"/"at-cost" sustain atop that is... atop what already exists. The only thing excluded from that picture is that actions which incur individual DPS loss can nonetheless create a party DPS increase, and such can still come in engaging and high-agency ways.

It's not some rhetorical trick.


Nothing that is ultimately at net cost will ever be used, but a cost can be (more than) recouped either through its actor itself (spending resource on the mitigation ultimately refunds that resource or generates enough individual DPS, such as through damage nullified causing direct or indirect damage, to surpass direct offensive spenders) or through other actors (such as your healers not needing to spend as many GCDs of healing on you).

The first was already mentioned before the time of my post, so there was no reason for me to repeat it. Moreover, of the two, the latter is the more natural and intuitive (literally happens anyways if you just don't implode healer kits with an excess of free/pre-allocated healing, and doesn't rely on gimmicks that may take far more complex calculations to find the net result from), while the changes that would better allow it to be leveraged are ones already widely requested by healers.

____________

To answer your questions more precisely/individually:

if we are tying more healing to GCDs, would this then be something that is more expected across all content, so that every GCD is not a damage GCD?

Yes. Since that also be to the benefit of healing kits and healer gameplay in general.

Why just change the one thing when there is so much more that needs to be considered.

I've made no such suggestion.

However, it still doesn't change the fact that the only time you would use it is when you are forced into it.

Wrong, unless by "forced" you mean "whenever, under perfectly performed mathematical calculations, it would be an increase to party DPS."

Tl;dr: Fundamentally, at-cost / "optional" sustain --especially where context-/timing-sensitive (e.g., percentile mitigation or recovery [see Death Strike] instead of just a flat shield or heal)-- is a wholly viable design in/for tank kits. The quality possible for that without relying on gimmicks (e.g., whereby your mitigation, itself, supplies damage directly or indirectly through your own actions), though, requires consideration of more than just the tank's own kit.

[Mikey_R]

My response literally pointed to any such change to make optional mitigation worthwhile without relying on gimmicks being largely impossible in isolation, and was specifically on when at-cost defensives would be optimal even when you are not "forced" (do or die) into them.

Again, missing the forest for the trees. You have assumed the defensive stance only affects one GCD on the healer side, but not how it affects the tanks. First we would need to determine whether it's a GCD swap or an oGCD swap, is there any recast and if so, how long is it. With a GCD to swap, you are effectively making the potency for that GCD 0, of which you might need another one to swap back, so if a healer can save 1 GCD of healing, it needs to outweigh the 2 GCDs the tank loses at minimum and this is before we talk about how it affects the burst phase.

If it is an oGCD, whilst there is no GCD cost, it would be stupid to have it on a 1 second recast as, what's the point? In my opinion, you might as well have another defensive to fill that slot, if it is required, otherwise, how the defensive stance affects your damage needs to be taken into account, which can span multiple GCDs, of which that potency adds up and can outweigh the 1 GCD the healer has saved.

If we then talk about altering GCDs so they serve a different purpose in defensive, then how does that affect potency?

I can go on and on about hypothetical situations where it could be more beneficial for the healer to lose the 1 GCD of potency as you get more out of the tanks, there are going to be situations where it is beneficial for the healer to do the damage and the tank takes the hit. However, none of that is relevant until a basis of what it means to have a defensive stance/offensive stance and how that affects the tank.


Also, to address these points:
[*] (talking about healer GCDs) "Yes. Since that also be to the benefit of healing kits and healer gameplay in general." I would also agree, however, with how healers are now, you would need to provide some DPS benefit for the GCD heal. I'm pretty sure tying the healing and damage together would help alot.
[*]"Wrong, unless by "forced" you mean "whenever, under perfectly performed mathematical calculations, it would be an increase to party DPS."" No, nothing for DPS, party or otherwise, was insinuated in that point. It was implied that, the only time you would go into it was when you had no other options, but why has it come down to the point of no other options? Is it because the tanks defensive kit has been neutered so you cannot cover ALL tank busters (at a minimum) with the kit and so are 'forced' to make this decision just to survive? Is it the case that the defensive stance is so strong that it is needed to survive specific hits, at which point it is forced on the player? (assuming your invulns cannot cover them all or are ineffective). In each case, you have to ask why you want to do this. Why do you want to force the tank to do something that feels bad to use. Ignore DPS, just concentrate on how it feels. Can you honestly say it felt good to be forced into tank stance back in SB because a DPS was being lazy with Diversion? It is the same here. You are being forced to reduce your contribution just because someone decided to. We already do less damage, which is fine, but why reduce it even more for some weird concept of 'defensive stance'.

[Shurrikhan]

Again, missing the forest for the trees. You have assumed the defensive stance only affects one GCD on the healer side, but not how it affects the tanks. First we would need to determine whether it's a GCD swap or an oGCD swap, is there any recast and if so, how long is it.

You're again responding to largely the wrong person. I'm not the one advocating for the return of a "tank stance", only for at-cost sustain options less or not limited by CDs and certain changes to the balance of damage intake and healing output.

A "tank stance" is a means of at-cost sustain (that can nonetheless be a net increase to party dps when used effectively); it is not the only means of doing so.

It was implied that, the only time you would go into it was when you had no other options

Which, again, would be wrong unless the tank stance were specifically made to be useless for skilled players, which would be a complete waste and clearly not something almost anyone would intend or ask for. That'd be at least as bad as the button-waste of GCD healing in the present state of the game.

You're effectively claiming that if the mechanic is self-sabotaged, it'll be bad. But neither needs to be the case.

Why do you want to force the tank to do something that feels bad to use. Ignore DPS, just concentrate on how it feels.

Does it "feel bad", though, to occasionally have it be more optimal to spend your gauge on Inner Beast (for its healing and mitigation) than on Fell Cleave (for its pure damage)?

Would it actually feel bad to have flexible control over one's outputs, instead of solely their timings, and to be rewarded for knowing when opportunities afforded to others (e.g., your healer) will outpace the opportunities you can gain for yourself? Would it feel bad to have significantly more access to active mitigation? Would it feel bad to have a higher skill ceiling accordingly, even it may slightly lower the floor by giving players fallback options?

First we would need to determine whether it's a GCD swap or an oGCD swap, is there any recast and if so, how long is it. With a GCD to swap, you are effectively making the potency for that GCD 0, of which you might need another one to swap back, so if a healer can save 1 GCD of healing, it needs to outweigh the 2 GCDs the tank loses at minimum and this is before we talk about how it affects the burst phase.

It's not all that hard to balance, but neither is it my idea, so I don't know why you're demanding these answers of me. Again, I'm not the one asking for tank stance.

It's fully viable, and when done right would be a boon, but I do not think all tanks need to have an identical sustain-option mechanic (i.e., for all to have a tank-stance, or any other single mechanism), and I do not think a stance toggle is typically the best way to cover that purpose anyways. Find the person who actually wanted tank stances to get these responses from.

[Post]

If they wanted to give tanks a dimension like this while still trying to keep Enmity out of the game (without having to put forth the cost to code it out; obviously its still there), they could simply:

Increase Provoke Enmity generation obscenely again, so tanks can be ahead of each other on Enmity.

Add 'generates additional Enmity ' to all tank actions, just to preserve that post 5.0 'make sure they're ahead of non tanks' Enmity flavor.

Drop Shirk to 30 sec so tanks can still do the older fights that require swaps more often than once every two minutes.

GNB's PVP incarnation already provides them 3 stances, and the same could be done in PvE with a Draw and Junction, using available players and themselves like BLU mimicry.

[Mikey_R]

If they were to bake in enmity management, would you accept bringing back both DPS and Tank stance, given that you are provided a means to reduce enmity generation as a role action? If not, how would you go about bringing back mit-dmg interaction?

Enmity management wasn't even the main issue between tank and DPS stance, it was the choice between a more defensive stance and a more offensive stance and, with the way the game is currently, offence will always trump defence.

One way you could force the tank stance is to make everything hit harder, but tank stance would still be bottom of the list in terms of reducing damage.

This is why any action where you have to choose between a defensive benefit or an offensive benefit will always come out on the offensive side, unless the defensive side is required to survive, but then it isn't really a choice as you are forced into it. This could then affect what tanks want to be stood infront of the boss, which ones don't, which ones can make the most use of their invulns etc. It is a deep hole if you really want to go down it.

[Absurdity]

This is why any action where you have to choose between a defensive benefit or an offensive benefit will always come out on the offensive side, unless the defensive side is required to survive, but then it isn't really a choice as you are forced into it.

What could however still be a choice is when you want to use it, which would at least add another decision to make in any fight. If I have to eventually use my defensive stance to survive, when is the best time to do so and when is it better to use my cooldowns while staying in offensive stance?

Granted this would only be temporary as well because people will quickly have mapped out the best timings for any encounter/party composition.