[Discuss] Bringing back mitigation-damage interaction

[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.

[Lyth]

If I was designing a mitigation-damage interaction for tanks, I'd implement something similar to Elden Ring's Parry/Counter system for tankbusters. If you time it correctly on a tankbuster (arrow action), it reduces the damage from the attack and generates a staggered debuff that gives you a miniature burst window to work off of (except that it won't be up for every tankbuster, forcing you to think a bit about where it would be most effective).

Sound effects are really important for a good counter attack. I think that's part of what made Shield Swipe and old Reprisal so satisfying.

[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.

[Zairava]

Returning back to this, yeah I simp for stances but I know it isn't the only method of having damage-mitigation interaction. Nor is it a widely popular method for modern ffxiv. That's why I feel like this discussion is important.

I'd like to see the return of Dark Arts damage-mitigation interativity on Dark Knight, for example, but I'm largely at a loss on how to do it with the other tanks. My second go to would be to have resources gained when you take damage, but I don't believe they want to go back to where not being MT would result in a loss of dps (which is, again, something I wish wasn't dropped. It provided a different feel between being MT and OT).

[Mikey_R]

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?

The problem is, there is no feedback to let you know you saved a healer a GCD, or that you have increased party DPS by using Inner Beast over Fell Cleave. It might have helped, it might not have, who knows? Maybe gear levels play a part, you might not need that defensive at higher gear levels, maybe the higher gear levels of the healer means they can just heal through it without issue. There is no way to know.

This compounds when you have alternate mitigation that has no drawbacks to DPS. Why would I use Inner Beast when I can Rampart or Vengeance, which have no impact on DPS, and also save the healer that GCD. When it gets to the point you HAVE to use the damage/mit tradeoff, are you going to feel better about it, knowing you may or may bot have saved a healer GCD, or, are you going to feel you have been unnecessarily nerfed.

You could make ALL mitigation have a DPS cost, but how would you balance that? Would stronger mitigations have a bigger impact to damage? Would they be the same? How about when you have to stack several together?

The other way is this damage/mit tradeoff is your ONLY form of mitigation. Then it is how often does it come up? How strong? How long does it last? How is it going to affect other content, ie. dungeon trash?

It might have been a good idea from the games launch, if they had kept the same design philosophy throughout the game, but they haven't. Even then though, I would bet questions would be asked. Why is it the tank that has to take the damage hit and not the healers (Talking in general here and not as the game is currently)? At which point, the game would change it so that tanks have no damage penalty for using the mitigation, which is exactly where we are now.

As for the big question (which goes for anyone who wants a damage/mitigation tradeoff), would it really fulfil what you want? Can you honestly say it would be a good addition? Or would it eventually go the way of old tank stances?

[Luizgazen]

If you want an ability that trades dps for survivability, there is already Clemency, and we all know how much people love using Clemency all the time...

[Shurrikhan]

If you want an ability that trades dps for survivability, there is already Clemency, and we all know how much people love using Clemency all the time...

Clemency is worth less than any Cure II equivalent, though, due to its lacking the 30% extra healing from Healer's Main and Mend traits, while PLD's offensive ppgcd is higher than most healers' and PLD has a strict macrorotation for which adjustment disproportionately sacrifices its highest ppgcd actions. Under that tuning and context, of course it will see little use.

Compare that, however, to say, old Equilibrium, which was more often used for healing instead. Or Inner Beast, which still saw decently frequent use while being the current Tank. Or if Holy Shelltron were a spender opposite a ~250p oGCD attack.

Do you really think players consistently would forgo over 1200p worth of personal sustain value, whenever it could make a difference larger than what they could do directly (e.g., that 250p) just so they could pad their ACT numbers at expense of clear time?

The problem is, there is no feedback to let you know you saved a healer a GCD, or that you have increased party DPS by using Inner Beast over Fell Cleave.

There is. Do you not track your healer's oGCDs? Would you not know how much damage is being mitigated by, say, a defensive that grants 30% mitigation for 4s, 15% mitigation for the 4s thereafter? If you have that awareness, and you know that your healer has exhausted their oGCDs and yet, despite your coming near death, there were no GCD heals used on you, you'd know pretty damn well that GCDs would otherwise have been needed.

Ngl, that seems like a skill/knowledge/awareness issue.

This compounds when you have alternate mitigation that has no drawbacks to DPS. Why would I use Inner Beast when I can Rampart or Vengeance, which have no impact on DPS, and also save the healer that GCD.

If an at-cost tool would not nonetheless create a net increase in party damage, you do not use it. If an at-cost tool would create a net increase in party dps despite its direct cost to personal DPS, you use it. It's that simple.

You're working under the assumption that the sustain tools tanks have already would so diminish the value of any additional tools that they could never break even. But that is only true of content that is already notoriously undertuned.

That such would very rarely find use in the most overgeared of the most casual of content... does not mean that the design is unworkable. It simply means that maybe places that drop i605 really don't need to allow for up to i665 gear, nor that endgame content needs to baby players harder than leveling content. That's a content tuning issue, not a fundamental one.

The other way is this damage/mit tradeoff is your ONLY form of mitigation. Then it is how often does it come up? How strong? How long does it last? How is it going to affect other content, ie. dungeon trash?

Why are you acting like these are novel concerns? That literally applies to every form of sustain existing tanks have right now. You simply, in effect, pre-pay for them. The existing kits have a set amount of combined sustaining + offensive output, with the only variance being the volume of input to fall under percentile Damage Reduction or Damage Amplification.

Even in that all-mitigation-has-a-cost model, the only change is the ability to spend would-be excessive mitigation offensively and to get through more difficult eHP checks at even lower gear levels, given sufficient skill. *

It's the likes of Energy Drain and Verraise. They aren't going to be used all the time, but having them is a boon to flexibility. And, more importantly, it increases the reward of being aware of your team's opportunities and incoming damage beyond a mere prescribed CD schedule. That, in turn, helps Tanks feel more like Tanks, rather than merely Blue DPS, and tanking a more frequent and active part of their kit.

Why is it the tank that has to take the damage hit and not the healers

? Not "taking a damage hit" is already an illusion, so long as there is any intent at balance between roles. If you're a healer, you're already giving up more and more of your would-be potential as a greater portion of your total output gets allocated towards those "free" healing tools. That tank dps wasn't reduced despite such large sustain increases (especially, to all but DRK) in Endwalker is largely why tanks feel so OP and healers so redundant.

That "hit" is simply the degree to which you can move your outputs as you see fit, letting your total value produced scale that bit more with player agency. It's no more a "bad" or "antithetical" action than a healer actually having reason (and ability) to use a GCD heal.

[Mikey_R]

There is. Do you not track your healer's oGCDs? ...

NGL, if you can track the oGCD usage and potentially cooldown of every healer in your party, whether it is 4 man or 8 man, all I can say is you are far and above some reasonable level of expected play and I applaud you for that. However, what about the rest of us where we either cannot effectively track all of that, or lack the knowledge for such a feat? Is such a thing actually reasonable to expect of someone? However, surely it would be better for the healer do deal with the situation as they have the direct knowledge of what they have in their kit, exactly what cooldowns they have and how to best use them. In this case, shouldn't the onus for the healing be on the healer?

If an at-cost tool would not nonetheless create a net increase in party damage, you do not use it. If an at-cost tool would create a net increase in party dps despite its direct cost to personal DPS, you use it. It's that simple.

But, as I said, you cannot guarantee the increased DPS. Noone has that sort of control over someone else.

You're working under the assumption that the sustain tools tanks have already would so diminish the value of any additional tools that they could never break even. But that is only true of content that is already notoriously undertuned.

No, if I have a tool that mitigates damage and I have another tool that mitigates damage but also reduces my own damage, the tool that mitigates damage is going to be the favourable one and people will ask, why does this second one have some sort of damage loss associated with it.

Even in that all-mitigation-has-a-cost model, the only change is the ability to spend would-be excessive mitigation offensively and to get through more difficult eHP checks at even lower gear levels, given sufficient skill. *

We had that sort of model before, it didn't work, as I am sure you are fully aware. DPS always wins.

It's the likes of Energy Drain and Verraise. They aren't going to be used all the time, but having them is a boon to flexibility. And, more importantly, it increases the reward of being aware of your team's opportunities and incoming damage beyond a mere prescribed CD schedule. That, in turn, helps Tanks feel more like Tanks, rather than merely Blue DPS, and tanking a more frequent and active part of their kit.

You have to remember, Energy Drain was initially taken away and was only added back in as Scholars complained it felt like a waste of Aether Flow when they had to use Aetherflow for their MP but still had stacks left. Energy Drain was easy to add back in, so they did. It does mean it effectively isn't there for the whole damage vs healing thing, that is just a side product from a slight design mishap. As for Verraise, outside of prog, they shouldn't use it, with the healers being the ones to sacrifice their GCD instead. So, if the healer should sacrifice in the case of DPS, why not have the same philosophy with tanks?

? Not "taking a damage hit" is already an illusion, so long as there is any intent at balance between roles. If you're a healer, you're already giving up more and more of your would-be potential as a greater portion of your total output gets allocated towards those "free" healing tools. That tank dps wasn't reduced despite such large sustain increases (especially, to all but DRK) in Endwalker is largely why tanks feel so OP and healers so redundant.

With tanks having much better sustain and mitigation tools, the expectation would have been an increase in the incoming damage to warrant the increase, not a reduction in DPS. The same could be said for the increase in healing tools, give more tools, expect more healing.

However, it is curious that you assume a greater defensive/healing kit necessitates a reduction in DPS as opposed to a change in the incoming damage.

That "hit" is simply the degree to which you can move your outputs as you see fit, letting your total value produced scale that bit more with player agency. It's no more a "bad" or "antithetical" action than a healer actually having reason (and ability) to use a GCD heal.

Which would be to use this tool as little as possible, getting the usage down to 0, unless I go back to the whole forced usage thing, in which case I go to why does this defensive cooldown suck compared to others. So, why? Why do you, or anyone else, want this tool in the first place?

[Shurrikhan]

But, as I said, you cannot guarantee the increased DPS. Noone has that sort of control over someone else.

Then hold the existing system to that same standard.

If using a defensive is "pointless" unless it produces rDPS or newly prevents a one-shot, but you "cannot guarantee" that a healing GCD will be trimmed for having used it, then what are your defensives doing against any attack that wouldn't one-shot you (regardless, apparently, of whether they're actually nullifying more damage over their whole duration)?

Are they likewise just bloat, despite the difference their "optional" (not required to survive) use being almost half of tank's total sustain, equating to about a fifth of an average healer's sustain output, which... even under the present "pathetic" healing requirements of this Savage tier, do not each have a fifth of their output to spare before using GCDs.

We had that sort of model before, it didn't work, as I am sure you are fully aware. DPS always wins.

It was a blatant tuning issue atop a cluster**** of a mechanic, wherein only one tank could actually change stances without crippling cost in more than a single direction per fight. How is that remotely a sane test case?

However, it is curious that you assume a greater defensive/healing kit necessitates a reduction in DPS as opposed to a change in the incoming damage.

I'm not saying what it should be; I'm pointing out what has happened.

Healer and tank's maximum portion of rDPS relative to DPS has decreased over time, probably because the sheer amount of pre-allocated outputs (via CDs that can ONLY be used towards sustain) are increasingly less able to flex around the demands of a given situation.

Which would be to use this tool as little as possible, getting the usage down to 0, unless I go back to the whole forced usage thing, in which case I go to why does this defensive cooldown suck compared to others.

Again, no, that's not the case. You're conflating tuning issues based on what is probably the most overpowered period tanks have ever experienced and, more importantly, the most banal period healing gameplay has ever experienced.

Why would you want to cement either? Why is that the state you want to build any and every possible design around?

Slightly wind back Healers' glut of oGCD healers and give them back greater swing to and control over their rDPS. Pull back a bit of Tanks' timing-insensitive or -inflexible sustain added in Endwalker (Holy Shelltron, Req healing, GNB ExCog, Bloodwhetting/Nascent no longer scaling with damage), so that performance varies more around timely use of cooldowns and/or setup around them -- i.e., the things that make tanking feel like tanking -- rather than being so padded by random-ass HoTs or Benedictions-per-25s in AoE. Both of those things are beneficial changes regardless.

From there, if you want healers to further imbalance towards barrier healers just being objectively better at basically everything and to make healing increasingly centered just around AoE heals, by all means, go increase damage in general. Otherwise, though, you're going to have to look more analytically into relative sustain requirements.

Yes, if tank sustain and damage to tanks increase equally, they cancel out... so long as you can't also trade out other roles for the one you most scaled to match that increased strength of content. But, you can. And we do. In which case just increasing damage to deal with excess tank strength, or vice versa, just increasingly means that you replace healers with tanks.

So, why? Why do you, or anyone else, want this tool in the first place?

Because, much like a situation where at-cost (i.e., non-Lily, GCD) heals can be of use (net gain) can let healers feel more like healers, having a place for at-cost tools on tanks rewards awareness of their party's output and opportunities relative to their own personal outputs, which can make them feel more like actual Tanks.

Consider if DPS had the current Tank treatment here:

Rather than depending at all on uptime, especially back when uptime could actually require some skill to maintain, or any other more varied level of optimization... you instead just have a set of CDs by which to do your damage. No more, no less. You quickly map out or look up online what the best time is to hit those CDs, and that's it. That's your role -- done. Anything else is shared mechanics. For your own role, there's no nuance, no shifting priorities, no real awareness checks; you just follow your schedule.

That's what your insisting is a preferable state for tanks and healers.