[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.

[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.

[Marxam]

the problem with enmity is that it forces a tank role in fights where that is completely redundant. Going from tanks having to keep the boss and adds away from the party to just hitting a striking dummy is quite the change of pace. The only way they can necessitate tank roles without forcing enmity as a gameplay quirk is to just make all raidwides into wild charges. So regardless of who has enmity you will always want the strongest "defense" jobs in the front to protect the party in the back. However this might forces the current heavy mitigation meta into overdrive.

Honestly they've dug themselves into a hole in terms of job design.

[Shurrikhan]

The problem with enmity is that it forces a tank role in fights where that is completely redundant.

That's not a matter/issue of "enmity" so much as tankbusters themselves at a particular tuning, where that ends up just being a composition check (have tank or rez player). Though, giving all big enemy attacks a means to be collectively mitigated through stacking or lining up in descending order of eHP to protect a marked target --even if that were far less healing-efficient than just using a tank-- would largely deal with that, too.

Enmity exists as it does now, and even as it did back in ARR/HW/StB, primarily to make it so that there's less party gameplay that each member is expected to participate in: Rather than melees swapping in and out, relaxing pressuring and reasserting pressure to allow ranged to briefly kite and then to peel from them as they run out of space, and the party needing to CC, focus fire, and apply timely suppression to specific enemies contextually you get a Blue DPS who prevents the need for any of that largely through just existing. Instead of most of the positional and coordinating aspects of tanking you just have a "Tank" who is free to then act as a simplified DPS with a set of isolated mini-game mechanics atop it.

The only way they can necessitate tank roles without forcing enmity as a gameplay quirk is to just make all raidwides into wild charges.

I'm assuming you mean the T10 mechanic, where damage is cumulatively reduced (and so we tend to line up in %miti order insofar as each sequential member can survive)? I don't think that's the only way to necessitate tanks, but I certainly wouldn't mind seeing more mechanics like that.

However, this might forces the current heavy mitigation meta into overdrive..

If there's already good reason to correct the existing state (say, of barrier heals just being superior healers altogether), that your idea would require doing so isn't a significant mark against it.

[Lyth]

Enmity generation has never had anything to do with player skill outside of snap aggro, which was a pass-fail check. If you want to differentiate between tanks, you need a positioning/movement check. Even small repositioning checks produce large variations in player execution.

Mitigation and damage normally intersect anyways, because plenty of mechanics are designed to coincide with burst, adding in extra weaves during your damage window. It would likely be more obvious without a one button burst design. Historically it was done by coupling resources to mitigation, like Raw Intuition and Vengeance generating Wrath/Abandon stacks, or by giving tanks proc-based counters like Reprisal and Shield Swipe. Both of these options are open from a design standpoint.

[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.

[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.