Add different type of monsters attacks

[Tunda]

The problem with the OP is they see a system in another game, think, I like that, put in FFXIV, but never think about how that affects FFXIV. Just slap a random system in there and hope it fits.

As if FFXIV a standalone game?

love it or hate it FFXIV is WoW clone with almost 80% gameplay identicality.. If we apply your logic then we could have FF11 systems in FFXIV
and that's not bad.. it is important to take notes from other games.

FFXIV removed this system because developer can't figure out how to implement it.. like other system they get rid of it (mana management) as I said before.

for RPG game first and MMO second it is really bad not having verity of RPG system.

just to simplify my Idea

1. Split the tanks and have 2 physical tanks and 2 magic tanks. This would, in theory, mean one set of tanks is better than another in a given fight, however, we also know that fights are designed so that all tanks can clear all content. This by necessity means the physical tanks can mitigate damage in the magic heavy fights and vice versa. This creates a potential...problem. If the extra mitigation power doesn't prevent someone from using a resource, then that extra mitigation is functionally useless, if it does, that is when it will tip the scales in favour of the 'right tank pair'. Then it is a case of how much it benefits the party.

I can see this will not work in any game from miles away.. why there is a job that can mitigate 1 type of attack? it isn't reasonable

all tanks should mitigate all type of attacks.. and there should be a reward system for it.. if it done successfully it should feel good

[Ramiee]

Well considering they can't balance a physical/magical split right now I'd say hold off from that until they figure that out

[CKNovel]

I don't see skill expression of pressing 2 or 3 buttons to mitigate 1 attack

It is just more button to press for no reason

And can you please tell me where the skill expression lies in your idea?
Pressing the corresponding color when I see one is something we'd play in kindergarten.

Let's be serious, do you honestly see someone going "oh no I pressed the wrong color!!"
Also, screw the colorblind I guess.

[Shurrikhan]

Hello

While I was playing Monster hunter stories 2 I found a really good concept that makes things fun for me

Which is attack type
Strength / speed / technique

What if we had similar concept for tank mitigation

If wrong type of mitigation it will loose 50% of its effectiveness

As a risk and reward thing

What do you think?

Knowing what to save your categorical mit for isn't "risk and reward". It just reduces the net complexity of optimizing one's sustain, since so much of the finer details (and maximum permissible incoming damage relative to tank base eHP at the encounter's tuning point) will be next to nothing compared to the simple mitigation types, which would then determine which (likely singular) CD schedule is permissible.

Rather, you're simply replacing...

• mitigation that can play a part in most mechanics/attacks and with therefore greater net potential for cognitive load (especially, if damage were increased to make tank swaps worthwhile without necessitating vuln swap or move-the-AoE-out gimmicks)
  --with--
• mitigation that can meaningfully play a part only within certain attacks and frequency of action to see even the small degree of cognitive load already present.

By all means, see how much DRKs and GNBs enjoyed having their categorically-specific raid-mitigation button rendered useless to press in certain fights.

Chances are, tanks wouldn't get much more fun out of having their capacities arbitrarily reduced in a given fight if the portions of each mitigation type varied across tanks nor would they enjoy needing 3x the buttons to achieve the same agency they have now even if the tanks were homogenized to carry the same portions of each miti type (as to prevent certain tanks just being outright stronger/weaker in certain encounters).

No, I'd much prefer to keep mitigation mostly general and simply amp up our agency through increased frequency and interaction among mitigation tools (atop perhaps a fair bit more randomization and some added bankability). Simon Says provides far less overall engagement, let alone agency, than being more able to choose how much potential mitigation to invest over what windows of time.

[Shurrikhan]

Food for thought:

Try these categories (formalized/nominal types A, B, and C into one of which each attack must fall) from any other perspective.

Take basic elemental damage, for instance:

Maybe an enemy is vulnerable to Fire and Wind. Okay, then you're forced to run WHM, SMN, BLM, and maybe MNK and NIN.

You can try to fix this by then aspecting a variety of attacks to various elements, but then you still end up reducing full toolkits or degrading their reward structures to just those particular attacks. NIN now has to spam Gust Blade and Aeolian Edge, Monk's damage lives or dies by whether Reply of Fire and Reply of Wind direct crit, DRG spams the newly wind-aspected Chaos Thrust / Chaotic Spring, etc. Whatever the case, you take something of which you had 100% useful... and reduced it to being useful some 16.7% of the time.

That waste, and subsequent loss of gameplay of need for extreme button bloat to return what we already had... is essentially what the suggestion would do to mitigation tools.
_______________

Now, compare that to what can be achieved through what differences can exist even without any nominal categories dividing them (no magical vs. physical or STR vs. INT) -- namely via differences in duration, depth, scaling factors (and therefore synergies), frequency, and source of mitigation tools:

Enemies might have, for instance, a flurry of weak attacks with nonetheless high total damage, or singular strong attacks. Against the first, a duration of flat damage reduction is best, while against the latter, a single-hit high %DR is best.

But, they have additional potential synergies, too. For instance, one may pair the %DR with a flat reduction in order to take 0 damage, thereby preventing the attack from inflicting its debuff.

If you have an attack that steals Haste from an enemy, not only does that reduce their AA frequency or slow a flurry of attacks enough to be healed through, but it might also provide you enough hits to ready an extra active (gauge-sourced) mitigation/healing/suppression tool.

Etc., etc.

Such provides actual room for agency, rather than a mere color-matching pretense of complexity. Rather than playing Simon Says with a third each of a mitigation kit, you're rewarded for precise knowledge enough to minimize excess flexible mitigation spent in avoiding a debuff or in making an attack survivable if a latter one might not be without sufficient resources saved for it, for knowing not just what tools your cotank has available but also how they might synergize with, rather than merely supplement, your own..

[CKNovel]

As Shurrikhan said, we also have different attacks that fits the request.
Single Hit, multi hit, bleed...

Tank Cooldowns aren't equals against those, some might do better, PLD's Guardian will be very strong against single hit while WAR's damnation will be stronger against sustained damage.

[Shurrikhan]

As if FFXIV a standalone game?

love it or hate it FFXIV is WoW clone with almost 80% gameplay identicality.. If we apply your logic then we could have FF11 systems in FFXIV
and that's not bad.. it is important to take notes from other games.

It's important to take notes only in a manner mindful of their sources' context, which you repeatedly fail to do.

I can see this will not work in any game from miles away.. why there is a job that can mitigate 1 type of attack? it isn't reasonable

You've again taken out of its context a quote that specifically shows the problems of any such system while simply laying out what all is possible... to feign that another poster suggested only and exactly what they had just critiqued.

[Tunda]

And can you please tell me where the skill expression lies in your idea?
Pressing the corresponding color when I see one is something we'd play in kindergarten.

Let's be serious, do you honestly see someone going "oh no I pressed the wrong color!!"
Also, screw the colorblind I guess.

the risk could be done by use the right mitigation for the right attack instead of using any tank mitigation you have (I have seen some tanks use 3 mitigation skills for 1 TB)
rewards continuation to mitigation with hard hitting attack based on job identity that can vary based on job.

it can be anything really color/icon/text whatever.
the most important risk and rewards structure should be unique for all tanks

[Tunda]

Knowing what to save your categorical mit for isn't "risk and reward". It just reduces the net complexity of optimizing one's sustain, since so much of the finer details (and maximum permissible incoming damage relative to tank base eHP at the encounter's tuning point) will be next to nothing compared to the simple mitigation types, which would then determine which (likely singular) CD schedule is permissible.

Rather, you're simply replacing...

• mitigation that can play a part in most mechanics/attacks and with therefore greater net potential for cognitive load (especially, if damage were increased to make tank swaps worthwhile without necessitating vuln swap or move-the-AoE-out gimmicks)
  --with--
• mitigation that can meaningfully play a part only within certain attacks and frequency of action to see even the small degree of cognitive load already present.

By all means, see how much DRKs and GNBs enjoyed having their categorically-specific raid-mitigation button rendered useless to press in certain fights.

Chances are, tanks wouldn't get much more fun out of having their capacities arbitrarily reduced in a given fight if the portions of each mitigation type varied across tanks nor would they enjoy needing 3x the buttons to achieve the same agency they have now even if the tanks were homogenized to carry the same portions of each miti type (as to prevent certain tanks just being outright stronger/weaker in certain encounters).

No, I'd much prefer to keep mitigation mostly general and simply amp up our agency through increased frequency and interaction among mitigation tools (atop perhaps a fair bit more randomization and some added bankability). Simon Says provides far less overall engagement, let alone agency, than being more able to choose how much potential mitigation to invest over what windows of time.

I disagree.. Tank gameplay is braindead because it is so simple to the point where you span any mitigation for next attack with no consciousness..

That create less complex gameplay system which reduce tanks thinking for what to do for next attack..
Thats why most people don't play or even skipping tanks,

people would rather play Job with complex rotation than 1 2 3 + any mitigation I have for next attack kind of gameplay..

Since shadowbringers people are skipping tanks because how they reach to the point of braindead jobs (TBF warrior is tank+healer at this point) I encourage you read other posts

[SquigglySquigs95]

And can you please tell me where the skill expression lies in your idea?
Pressing the corresponding color when I see one is something we'd play in kindergarten.

Let's be serious, do you honestly see someone going "oh no I pressed the wrong color!!"
Also, screw the colorblind I guess.

Well you see, OP thinks Simon Says is a complex game with tons of room for player expression, clearly.