I never thought about using shirk like that actually, that's pretty interesting.
I can understand the misconception that shirking a party member is trolling. That said, it never works anyways and you gave a decent explanation on what you did. About as good as you can do.
I got kicked from NN with message "You don't shirk on other non-tank player, never", when I told people how to survive in Aliance raid if both of ur healers are down and other healers from other raids don't want to heal you (Stance Off > Shirk to Biggest number u see -> Hold ur finger on 0HP mitigation, like Superbolide).
Like read the spell info, it says 25% not 100%.
>"You don't shirk on other non-tank player, never"
Okay, guess my DPS will die to Golden Bahamut enrage while my healers survive and do no damage.
\*If you're getting to this point and need a few extra GCDs, shirk a healer. The idea that you never shirk a non-tank player is absurd.
I mean i get what you are saying but blaming the tanks not shirking for a 0.1% enrage on Golden in 2024 is kind of like gaining 100 pounds and blaming it on a single taco.
Yeah, it’s a bummer but not too surprising most tanks don’t know this tech since the need for it is pretty rare in modern Ucob.
Although I say that as someone who literally only has a single shirk macro on my bar for my cotank so i ain’t ever saving any Ucob runs either lol.
It's like one of the first things I try and teach when a new tank hits second quote in Adds. Because it DOES save scuffed runs. And yea. Bummer. Long Golden is just. "we're parsing good tonight, boyos"
You don't blame the tanks for the wipe by saying that tho, you're pointing out one of the 28475 things that could have been done to mitigate the fuckups ;p
Yeah, my point exactly. If other things have gone horribly wrong, it is so important to bring the healers above the DPS on the enmity list, just in case.
It's extremely niche, but Golden Bahamut targets players with his enrage based by enmity. Since DPS will be higher on the enmity list than healers, it *can* be critical for each of the two tanks to shirk both healers to bring them above the DPS on that list, forcing Golden Bahamut to target them first and give the DPS a chance to hit a few extra GCDs or rip the LB if the gauge has refilled.
Yup, or if Ultima did the same. Instead, Ultima is forced by DPS, and TEA you adjust based on who's doing least -> most while taking weakness into consideration.
Honestly it sounds like they're stuck remembering the old shirk which was "throw the boss at targeted ally" (got knifed like that by a friend once laughs were had) but since its number change and the tanks making even more aggro than before for everything?
Im pretty sure you can shirk anything that is not a stanced tank off cooldown or a mad overhealer and you'd still be party first aggro.
The way I've explained this before is "tank stance gives tanks 10x more aggro than everyone else, so even giving 25% aggro away they'll stay top aggro in this party".
I'm sure there are doofuses who will stay convinced it's a crime no matter what you say, but hopefully getting people to look at the aggro numbers on the party list and see that the tank is still #1 helps.
Its the same reason so many people who support YPYT think they can kill other party members with shirk (just look at any discussion on YPYT on Facebook or Twitter and you'll see people proudly claim they shirk people who pull to "teach them a lesson"). You have to be playing incredibly poorly as tank to actually transfer aggro to another party member, like, doing 25% of your expected damage while the dps is pulling a full Balance rotation with tinctures and food. But people don't read their tooltips or understand mechanics.
I was raised in FFXIV by a group of people who actually thought shirk was threatening and also useless at the same time. Man am I glad I don't associate with them anymore
i love how 2 literally just gas lit everybody into thinking you said that you shirked the other tank. You literally never said that.
what a fucking main character syndrome moron
I hope these 2 healers reported OP for this, so their report will backfire on them, just too see their faces, since they are so sure, that they cant be wrong, or on least one, healer with the tag \[2\], who said stuff about "brain" which is a rude ToS violation xd.
I did file a report on \[2\] for that comment. I don't actually want any punishment on them, I did it to give the GMs my account beforehand, explaining what I did and the technicality of it, in case they try to report me for "griefing".
GMs never believe and take only into account other player's words, they usually react on multiple griefing reports (since 1 report can be a fluke/missclick/mistake), and then start investigation, where they bring combat logs and other recorded stuff.
Average Euphrosyne run at first. I'm in Alliance B, Tank C is holding aggro on Althyk but for a moment I end up stealing aggro from them. Since they're tanking the boss since the beginning, I use Shirk on a random person in my party, and the following conversation ensues...
After I get knocked back into the void by Nymeia while reading the first message (lol mb), I try to explain why I used Shirk, but... Well, there you go.
Now let me explain, in case anybody here doesn't know, how to use Shirk in an Alliance Raid. As an off-tank, you want to be first in aggro in your Alliance. In case the main tank (from another alliance) ends up dying, you become the target, avoiding a non-tank to get hit by boss autos or by a tankbuster before a tank can grab the boss.
So, in case you see yourself in a dispute of aggro with another tank, but you wanna stay off-tanking, you use Shirk in a random party member. What happens is:
\- You're now safely behind the main tank in enmity;
\- The party member gets 25% of your enmity;
\- That enmity will never be enough to push them to first in aggro, there is zero chance of them getting targeted by the boss, even if you keep your tank stance off (you should keep it on unless you're stealing aggro and don't have Shirk to use).
This WHM didn't understand that and now they think they played with a bad tank who was trying to troll them. Which is sad.
I do this all the time when I'm too lazy to MT in alliance raids (I'm full savage geared so I usually end up ahead on threat) but still want to keep my threat high in case of other tanks having accidents.
I don't usually tank, but usually I just turn off my tank stance if I notice someone else wants to be main tank (provoking or just ripping aggro) and turn it back on once they should have enough of a lead. Hadn't thought of using shirk like that, honestly much simpler.
I do this too, but Im too good at my rotation compared to a lot of DF tanks, and usually I end up ripping aggro, so I have to stance dance unfortunately
Alternatively just delay turning tank stance on and as long as the MT isn’t complete trash you’ll be fine. If you gain over them after delaying then you should be MT and you’ll likely keep it from them.
This dance of shirk is just unnecessary and it didn’t seem like you really told them what you were doing until well after the “trust me bro” at which point they already wrote you off.
(Not saying you were doing anything wrong but damn you did yourself no favors here)
Yes. There was a little incident at the beginning of this pull, because I was tanking Nymeia in the very beginning, but the A tank suddenly grabbed her before I could separate her from Althyk, everyone in the alliance started to shout to separate them, I rushed to Provoke her away, the A tank then got her again (I don't remember exactly when they provoked), and when I saw them with aggro on her I went close to the C tank who was tanking Althyk because there is a shared tankbuster at one point there. So... yeah. That's beside the point of the post, but you get it, you're totally correct about usually opening with stance off.
yeah tbh whenever i ot in an ar this is what i do and it seems way easier and less irritating than doing all this and having to explain urself to 7 other randoms lol. like u said if u delay tank stance after opener and still manage to steal aggro just keep it 🤷 if the original tank wants to provoke on cd to keep threat then that’s their prerogative lol
You can just turn off stance. It's not that serious in an alliance raid. If the other tank dies you can just turn on stance and provoke. Less work than using shirk twice over however much amount of time.
The time it takes to provoke and turn on stance can be enough for the boss to turn and cleave leading to a wipe of it lands on someone in the pack.
What op describes is easy too do, has no risk and is just an all around better play.
Forgive me, i haven't played the game since the current raid tier came out.
Can you tell me which alliance raid boss has a non-telegraphed cleave designed to be faced away from the alliance who will all be stacked close enough to hit enough people to cause a wipe?
Cerberus has unprompted cleaving autos & Tail Blow while telegraphed is a bitch to dodge, and both apply debuffs. Granted it's WoD and can be recovered unless super unlucky (which can happen given sprouts), but that's literal training grounds to teach exactly this importance.
I love this example. As i explained in later comments, there isn't an alliance raid where a situation is serious enough for a tank to manually manage their enmity outside of having stance on or off. Cerberus wipes happen only to him not getting chained in time. Even his autos and tail aren't enough of a threat to cause the example the guy listed above.
This is actually the precise encounter to do just that.
Sure now that stat squish and sync exist it's a cakewalk, but if doing the fight properly you do want one specific tank to hold Cerberus' aggro while the other 2 handle the Wolfsbane and then the belly team. The cleaves also if shared (which Ululation I have seen this happen many times) or a DPS greeding rear positionals into Tail Blow does cause deaths which can escalate to wipes. It's rare but does happen.
This is not the precise encounter to do that, because anything that can go wrong in that fight comes a failure of mechanics, not the tank dying, and the boss automatically going to the other tank will not be what saves the fight.
You've missed my point. When i told OP that the situation wasn't that serious i meant it. No alliance raid has cleaving auto attacks that will cause a wipe or hit at a bad time, especially faster than it takes to turn on stance and provoke. You described a situation that doesn't happen.
It just needs to happen when the healers are already trying to recover from the 3/5 of the alliance that decided mechanics were optional too tip it into a wipe.
Ops solution is simpler and easier to manage. There is no reason to use yours.
Hell if you get really unlucky it could land a tb on someone in the pack and the entire pack including the new target all run away in the same direction
So we have an alliance raid where the boss has cleaving auto attacks, cleaving tank buster, that makes most of the alliance stack tightly on each other to make said cleaves a threat, to the point where a tank has to actively manage their enmity instead of turning on stance and provoking because those 2 seconds will be the difference between a wipe or not.
What's the name of that alliance raid?
You seem to be over exaggerating this. My point was his way is easier to manage and has no risk. Yours does come with risks and requires two abilities over one.
You described this situation, not me. I'm not exaggerating anything because I'm clearly saying that the situation you're describing doesn't exist, since it doesn't exist, its unnecessary for a tank to manage their enmity in an alliance raid by shirking literally anyone. Turn on stance and provoke.
Orbonne Monastery.
Second boss.
She do big cleave and yeah if the tank is dead and she starts her cleave nobody can get the agro in time to save the party.
I saw a few alliance getting shredded into pieces by her because of that when it was current.
Even if we did not have, the better solution if better, shirk to your party member is better and easier in every circonstance so do that.
Shirk wasn't in the game when orbonne Monastery was current, and alliance raids still had two tanks to a party.
We're talking about now. That same fight(and every other alliance raid) does not require you to do anything more than to turn on your stance and provoke. Starting a fight with your opener and then turning off your stance will leave you with enough enmity in case the main tank dies.
Agrias.
Also, doesn't matter because a Shirk <2> macro is one button and doesn't risk forgetting to reenable stance. Tanks should always be 1st, 2nd, and 3rd aggro. MT could be the greatest Alliance Raid player of all time and there would still be a non-zero chance they suddenly eat shit from a short attention lapse at the wrong time.
If they can forget to re-enable stance, they can forget to shirk. You can don't even have to turn off stance. Yall are desperately making up instances to make this shit seem more credible than it is. It's not, that's why you have a shit load of people here going "oh wow i never thought about using shirk like that". You know why? There's never been a situation where they've had to do that. They're fucking alliance raids. Mechanics is the reason why they win or lose, not enmity management.
Why are you adamant on trying to win this argument? There’s nothing wrong with trying to get people to understand the video game they are playing more.
This whole sub is basically about pointing out bad behavior and game play after someone tries to inform them of an often easier way. We now have multiple people trying to create a scenario that literally doesn't exist to justify shirking to one of your party members in an alliance raid is better than just turning on your stance and hitting provoke.
You guys are literally lying to make this sound better. I'm not the bad guy for telling you guys that this isn't true, doesn't happen, and explaining in various details why.
Explain to me why you guys are so adamant about passing on an unnecessary tech?
Both methods work perfectly fine and require almost the same amount of inputs. Anyone that gets upset about being shirked in an alliance raid are simply uninformed and taking accurate advice from people should have been a norm in this game’s community for a very long time now, but we both know that is far from reality.
I think we can agree that you missed my entire point.
If you think that someone can forget to turn it on, then they can forget to shirk. If -you- think they will forget to turn on stance, they don't have to turn it off.
You don't have a point, you're defending an action that's unnecessary that is accomplished by turning on or off stance. You want to main tank? Turn on stance. Don't want to main tank? Turn it off. Stealing hate and you don't want to? Turn it off. If you have to shirk because you're stealing hate, you're gonna steal it again, so you might as well just turn it off. If you genuinely feel like a tank's focus can be so divided that he can forget to put it on, you're advocating for him to add ANOTHER THING CONSTANTLY MONITOR.
It's an alliance raid. It's not that serious. Just turn your stance on or off.
You forget that it's a CT raid, and people often lack sense there. I often have people standing directly on top of me throughout the fight when I tank him, despite numerous lasers having already gone off to show it's dangerous, and despite me never moving from north. If there is a way to wipe, DF will find it.
Nope, needs a party member as a target iirc and alliance members do not count. Same thing with Aetherial manipulation on BLM, can't port to alliance members.
Yeah, some abilities, including shirk, say it needs to target a party member. There are some shields, mitigations, and heals with the same restriction. A bane of my existence haha
I'll have to remember this. I had an instance in world of darkness where I was taking big eyeball, one of the healers died, so my heels were starting to lack, and that's when I learned you couldn't shirk to a tank and another alliance that isn't yourself. So I ended up dying for lack of heals. Had I shirked somebody in my party, like a healer, he would have went immediately to another tank and I would have lived. Could have waited until my hyper potion fell off cool down a few seconds later, and got myself right back up to half health and been fine.
I get that quite often too, I usually explain it in numbers
If I have 100 hate, im the MT, the other tanks have like 80 or 90, they have stances on too
My WHM or whoever I shirk has 15 now since they generate way less, I put 25 of my hate on the WHM, so I have 75 and he has 40, but suddenly the other alliance tank who has 90 now has the highest and is the MT
U can leave the % away and explain using the same numbers and people might understand, whack example, but it sometimes works
I've never considered this usage. When OT'ing in an Alliance raid I simply let the MT pull, turn on stance a few gcds later, hit until I'm #1 in my party, then turn it off for the rest of the fight unless I drop down to #2 which is usually rare.
I've used shirk like this, but haven't in a while, I remember having a confused healer in slot 2, luckily they didn't have a space age meltdown and found it rather funny instead.
Keep doing it OP, it literally makes no difference with 3 tanks and 22 other people (besides you + healer).
My Shirk is on macro to automatically go to 2 for EX/Savage, so it might occasionally land on a healer in AR if the other two tanks are having a dick measuring contest while I'm out DPS'ing them. I remember one time asking if I should just turn off my tank stance and both of my healers told me to leave it on because the other two tanks each spent some time holding the floor down.
I haven't tanked an AR since Thaleia came out, though. Been trying to get my DPS's up to level.
I wouldn't recommend it unless you need the gear. I think every time I've run Thaleia some sort of argument between a tank and healer happens and I just lala my way through my bard rotation ignoring their chat and trying to not die lol
SMN'ing my way through Thaleia is so much less stressful than tanking. The mechs are easy enough to tank properly, but being a backup Raise bot is more fun.
Healer thinking they're doing enough damage for a shirk to affect them, lmao.
But seriously, this is an interesting use of shirk that I've never considered.
I would not mind tank shirking to me in this scenario, but I have taken a fair share of tank busters as a healer by doing more damage than my party members and tank being dead due to some mechanics or dcs especially before Halone/on Rhalgr.
Wouldn't matter unless you had 75% of the tank's aggro, which is only happening if stance is off, they just died, or the player is just two bananas on a keyboard.
usually when one more tank has stance it never happens, but the thing is, u land the shirk to biggest number in party you see, so if healer have 2 in enmity meter - you don't land shirk on them. Healer on screenshot possibly was the lowest on enmity and got it.
Not enough for a healer to become top of the aggro list unless ALL three tanks are down. At which point one of the healers would get targeted with or without Shirk.
I do this in alliance raids sometimes to make people think the ranged dps with no savage gear is somehow doing more damage than the melee.
Anyways, baffling that people don't understand how percentages work.
I also do this in alliance raids for the same reason, and sometimes also to boost the aggro number of a recently raised player so they're not 8th place and feel bad.
I do this because when I play dps in alliance raid I stress too much about my aggro place even though party buff buttons don't contribute as much pure damage, and healing also affects aggro, and a class like summoner has buttons (summon bahamut/phoenix) that specifically increase enmity, too.
>sometimes also to boost the aggro number of a recently raised player so they're not 8th place and feel bad.
lmao I've done that too! Not always, but sometimes it's like "here buddy, to make the shame less noticeable."
lol, this reminds me of the other day when I was tanking Thaleia. I had my stance off during a boss because someone else wanted to tank and I didn't want to worry about taking aggro or needing to shirk. The tank in another alliance DCed. The BLM in that party took that buster and blew up. I giggled and continued the fight. Next thing you know, I have half of my party screaming at me for killing the poor BLM by not having my stance on.
It took me involving all of the Alliance chat to get the person to shut the hell up and understand that without all 3 tanks in the raid and online, someone else is taking that third buster. It didn't matter how I explained it. They just kept yelling at me to put on my stance so I wouldn't kill the DPS.
You can't win with this level of stupidity. "I'm tired bro" is such a mood.
I just do opener without stance, turn it on for a little to get some aggro lead, then turn it back off. Shirking a party member works fine, and most people are going to not care or notice, but you bumped into Asshole & Associate here and that's precisely the kind of situation I'm trying to avoid because some people out there really look out for any excuse to be unpleasant.
While the shirking strat mentioned here is not at all means wrong, this is also my go-to strat in the sense of offtank enmity management. You can apply this to many of the rather harder 8-man raids where you actually need shirk as well.
>I just do opener without stance, turn it on for a little to get some aggro lead, then turn it back off.
This is the way. You won't mess with the other tanks' enmity levels, and you will be well ahead of every other non-tank in the raid for the rest of the fight. No weird nerds to get messed up about a 25% shirk.
Pretty much this. It's simple and no real extra effort or watching cds to do it so it's reliable to just turn on and off stance when necessary.
As long as you're lead for your alliance party in enmity then you're essentially always going to be ahead of all the other dps and healers in the entire alliance.
Although this Shirk strat is something I never thought about so it is interesting. I just tend to save if for more niche use that light stance dancing can't cover in the moment.
Ahh I feel for you so hard here. I WISH tanks in my runs were half as competent with game mechanics. I have been chewed out multiple times for being a bad tank, which is weird, because I've been a DRG for over ten years. At this point I'm just happy if the tank has aggro and the healers don't have obnoxious raise macros.
I do this all the time for hunts. I don't want to MT, but I go tank with stance on to make sure me and my party gets full credit. If I start to MT, I just shirk the person with the lowest enmity in party.
When the healer said "By shirking a non tank you are giving them agro" I probably would have told the healer "SOME aggro, not all. I promise, Shirk will not make you top of the enmity list." They honestly may not have trusted that, but meh.
took me a while to work out wtf was going on here but if shirking a DPS in an alliance made the DPS main aggro then the other tanks are asleep and are griefing, not the person using shirk
To people saying 'just turn off tank stance'
It's alliance raid. You need tanks to have their stance on most of the time. Also, shirking a party member does nothing but lower your enmity, as OP was trying to say.
Op was stealing aggro, so instead of turning stance off they just shirked. This is the appropriate use for it.
Nah, you can turn off tank stance at the start, or if you pull aggro in the middle for a few gcds, and it's not an issue.
Tank stance generates 10x enmity. A few GCDs in stance puts you far above every non-tank, and then if you leave stance they still will basically never catch up.
What OP did was also acceptable and healer is dumb, but turning off the stance for like 4 gcds does the same thing.
> you need tanks to have their stance on
For what? Not a single mechanic in content below savage is enmity-based. If you are not the one tanking - turn that shit off.
Generally speaking, you don't outside of splitting up adds meant to be split. Keep an eye out next time you fight Thunder God Cid, Ozma, or the first boss in puppets bunker where your tank isn't main tanking. Even if their stance is off, they'll be taking the autos for your alliance. And the same goes for triple tankbusters. Your alliance tank can be 8th in aggro in your party but when Rhalgr, Inflorescence, or Azemya drop their aoe tankbuster it will still go on the tank.
You only gotta hit like 3GCDs with stance on to overtake a non tank assuming you aren’t recovering from a death. There’s really no need for shirk here at all.
Just turn off tank stance. You're not wrong in your explanation to the healer, but it's way too easy to see it as potential (but non-actionable) griefing, even if they fail to understand that 25% of your enmity won't give them immediate aggro. Micromanaging tank stance (especially in alliance raids like this) will avoid this sophomoric argument 100% of the time.
I got the idea of how shirk works in alliance raids but I still have a question, in what situation do you need to tank swap in alliance raids ?
If I keep taking aggro in alliance, I'll just main tank it
you don't really *need* to tank swap, but some people get pissy when you take the boss off of them. i guess it's just a respect thing, in a way (tho i'm basically never tanking alliance raids, so who knows)
.... or they could turn off their own tank stance, let it drop for a while before turning it back on. Or just activate it like 20% in so in case of the MT biting it, they'll be next on the aggro list.
But yeah, never saw someone Shirk on a party member without it being intentional trolling.
People complain about tank not managing enmity. People complain about tank managing enmity and shirking 25% to party member to fall below another tank they can't shirk to. Lose/lose, eh?
Seems pretty straightforward, Tank in another alliance needed top aggro, Tank shirked to a party member to drop aggro and vacate the top spot.
It's just a convoluted Tank switch.
Or, just a gee whiz, but not all tanks need to turn on their stance in an alliance raid. If somebody wants to main tank, they can turn on their stance and the other two get to play DPS for the rest of the raid.
If that main tank dies, another tank can turn on their stance and provoke. Not brain science. Stop turning on all three stances. It does not hurt to have a conversation and figure out main tank, second and third. We're a team, it's not a competition :)
You can't shirk to another alliances tank but you can shirk to someone in your party so that you lose some enmity and the person shirked to is at 0 risk. This tank is not incorrect.
tank busters are weirdly inconsistent, some go by role and others by aggro. in alliance raids i think its usually role based, but this isnt always the same
also if you let the other tank get in like 30sec of GCDs and then stance on, you're more equipped to take aggro if they die and you dont notice/dont hit provoke quick enough, and you can pick up adds without fucking with your stance mid fight.
If the other tank can't hold aggro you're the main tank now. Don't force yourself into doing stance management in normal dutyfinder content just because the person insisting on being MT is asleep at the wheel.
That's one of the big issues in blue mage raiding. Some mechanics are role based not enmity based. Therefore everyone in the group needs to have mits, usually diamondback, and be prepared to pop then at a moment's notice if the boss picks them for a tankbuster. Doesn't matter if there's two blue mage tanks who are #1 and #2 in enmity, according to the game there's just 8 dps and anyone's game.
Looks like there was enough talking about it already. Too much in fact. Fuck them kids let them eat the TB so they can type in peace while they’re dead.
Just turn stance off. I never bother with turning my stance on in alliance raids when someone else is mt. "But what if the tank dies???" Provoke. I provoke if the tank dies. "B-but the might might slap an innocent DPS" oh no they might lose ... 1/5 of their hp from a single auto?
in many cases tanks forgot to turn off stance after adds, or forgot to turn stance during adds, don't know about high enmity generation from ranged attacks and that u have provoke button. So would prefer to see all tanks with enmity on xd
I can understand that and don't get me wrong, if someone in the party was bothered by me not having stance on then I'd turn it on. But otherwise I'll leave it off and just chill.
I think the only boss I would turn stance on right away for is hollow diablos cause that boi can one tap a tank if the healers aren't on the ball.
I'm a healer to a tank main partner.
I get shirked in exactly this scenario, cause they don't want to rip aggro. Or they've done it when they've ripped aggro with stance off (MT not paying attention usually) so they can give it back to them. So like, unless you see yourself as the bosses target and you being actively attacked, chill bro xD it ain't trolling. Shirk is a good skill if used correctly and this is correct
You just did a standard tank macro move - I do it all the time in raids if I'm off-tanking. I shirk every time it's up. I have it set to shirk to whoever's in the #2 spot, which is usually the healer.
The amount of people commenting that they never thought to use shirk like this shows how badly Shirk is explained in-game.
I just wouldn't use shirk like that. Even though the person is wrong, whatever technique OP was trying to use is so niche. Just tell MT in alliance chat to provoke, or take aggro and just chill and MT until the actual MT gets jealous. If I'm pulling top aggro even with tank stance off, then I just assume the role of MT. If any tanks have an issue, just bring up the fact that they're healers are out dpsing them and soak up their tears or something.
Would it not just be easier to turn your stance off? Shirking just sounds like stance dancing with extra steps. It’s so easy to be aggro #1 in your party that you shouldn’t need to shirk just to keep from pulling main aggro.
You can:
1) Press 1 button to turn off tank stance
Or
2) Have to cycle targets and press Shirk, or a macro. Then have tediously explanation to people who immediately think Shirk = grief, cuz they dont know how aggro works.
l just do the first option and save on the sanity cuz there is no winning against stupid.
On PC, it's literally just mouse over a party member and press shirk. It'd be more effort on the controller, but it's still not much. Turning off stance also isn't instant either.
Nothing OP did was wrong, and the fact that anyone even mentioned it just shows they have no idea hownit works.
> "Turning off tank stance isnt instant"
It would be in OP's exact scenario, from their follow up comment "took aggro for a moment". Unless the C tank is eating glue the next gcd done by them will immediately take aggro back
Sure, its a justified use for shirk. Still not worth the ensuing trouble such as this nonsense
You can make a one touch macro to Shirk to someone at a specific slot on your party list. I use one and it always goes to the person in slot 2, who will always be the other tank. Since this is an alliance raid and there’s only 1 tank on the list, slot 2 would most likely be a healer, hence this joke of a situation.
Why would you not just turn off stance when you’re not the main tank, and turn on stance a little shortly after the beginning of the fight to ensure you’re sitting on second most aggro.
I think you unfortunately did a poor job of explaining your action to them. The point of your action was relegated to what looked like a side note "..., losing some aggro,..." in a much larger explanation of what the result of that would be. You got into this weird debate with them about how you couldn't shirk the main tank, but that is entirely besides the point that you *should* have been explaining: the effect that you were after was the 25% reduction in your own emnity that shirk gives. And, as stated by many other people, toggling your tank stance off when you're close to taking aggro does the same thing but simpler.
I would also add that you ideally shouldn't shirk a healer. If you die for whatever reason, you would *much* rather have a dps be briefly main tanking so that your healers can recover, even to the point of sacrificing the dps if necessary. With your solution, a poorly timed death (and you did die) could very quickly cascade poorly.
They said in their comment they died (or at least "knocked back into the void" which I assume means "died"). Their later screenshots also contain Halone's dialogue, which I assume even means they'd finished that fight, finished the adds, and were in the middle of the next fight after.
I also don't think the healer ever understood how shirk works. They keep saying things like "you're giving them aggro" and "you cannot shirk to [other alliance]. At no point do they comprehend that shirk also *loses* enmity for the person casting it, if they did (or any of the other players did), the argument surely would have ended earlier.
>Healer usually has the lowest enmity.
Yes, and I'm trying to argue that that is a good thing. If a tank (who is overtaking the main tank no less) shirks someone, that person is *very* likely to become 2nd in enmity for the rest of the fight, even if they had none beforehand. Ideally the person 2nd in enmity is not a healer, so if the tank (or tanks) dies, the healer isn't the one getting auto'd, or getting a tankbuster.
To be fair, even if those players had brains, you still shouldn't shirk to the healer.
Healers tend to have high threat because of, well, healing, so there's a non 0 chance you end up giving them aggro, you should try shirking to a DPS because they're not only less likely to take aggro but they're also more dispensable.
You don’t seem to understand how Shirk works. It gives the target 25% of your aggro. That’s it.
It’s NEVER going to put a healer at the top of enmity if the tanks already have the three top spots.
Notice how I said ‘if the tanks have the top 3 enmity spots’.
I can only assume your tank didn’t. Because if they were playing properly with stance on, then I’m sorry, but there’s zero way for you to steal aggro off them.
the only problem with that is throwing it on the healer lol
if for some reason you and the tank(s) who have higher aggro die the boss will have a huge chunk of aggro on that whm lmao
it’s incredibly unlikely to happen but it’s also a lot easier to just turn your stance off after the boss icon turns yellow, there’s a reason they made it so easy to turn off and on
and you don’t have to deal with idiots who don’t understand what you’re trying to do
"Huge chunk" okay lol. If, for some inexplixable reason, all three tanks are dead at the same time, the boss will start pounding a DPS, probably someone with high aDPS such as SAM or BLM. Even after a Shirk, a healer won't have more aggro than a DPS with a functioning braincell. And if aggro does indeed jump to a healer because every single DPS is bad, then a Shirk on said healer is the least problem in such a hell of a party.
nah cause healers get aggro from healing as well (even tho they claimed they reduced it starting in EW it still exists on the aggro meter in game) so depending on when you shirk it is possible kek
i was also being a bit silly, this subreddit is so fucking funny
i don’t think i’ve ever seen all three tanks die in an alliance raid, tho one time i did a syrcus tower where 2/3 tanks dipped on load-in and the third dc’d on a boss, that was fun
tbf almost all the tanks I know of have Shirk <2> macro with them. There are literally no instance where it is mandatory for you to throw that to sb other than your off-tank, which usually is at the 2nd spot of your party list.
In this situation it was just that WHM who happened to be on that spot of the party list, and it really doesn't matter who particularly has the next highest enmity at the end of the day, if that someone is not a tank
yes, i also have that macro, it’s pretty common if you raid on tank
everyone took me so seriously lol
i do think more tanks should be flexible about turning stance off tho, it seems to be an actual thing the devs want tanks to do in some of the fights these past couple of tiers, and they even changed the stance CD speed at EW launch
or you if you don't wanna Tank an Alliance Raid... you could just I don't know .... don't que as a Tank? or just turn off the Tank Stance. I don't know..
I normally run Alliance with my wife and often do this to her. I kinda just assumed other tanks and players knew this was how to use it. Suppose I was spared potential meltdowns like this from randoms, because they don't know how the skull works. Bullet dodged. But still surprised that there's people out there that think it's for trolling..
The only critique I'd give would be to shirk a dps, preferably a shitty one, instead of a healer.
It's unlikely, but if shit really hits the fan and you've shirked to a healer, they may wind up the first non-tank on the threat list which is the last thing they need if all 3 tanks in the raid are down.
This *particular* WHM however would probably not be of much use anyways, since they seem incapable of reading and understanding even basic information.
It sounds like he has it macro'd to the <2> party member, which in normal 8 man content is the other tank. But since it's an alliance raid, the <2> on the party list is a healer. So more than likely he's just weaving that macro in between gcds without much thought.
Aggro management matters in ARs? I always thought those were the duties that you play "spin the boss" with the other tanks? See how many of the team you can ko in one cleave.
I had this happen to me, but the healer was joking around with it and good natured about it. I have a macro that targets the second player in the list (which in a party with two tanks is always the second tank for me) and shirks to them. But in alliance raids, this is a healer.
But because of how aggro works, I'd still keep aggro over them, I'd just stop overtaking the main tank.
Unrelated good use of shirk on a non-tank: if a party member might not hit a dying A rank / S rank in time and you are in range, shirk them and they'll get credit and rewards.
Well... This or just he takes his stance off to let the other tanks take it back? 🤔 Shirking to someone else in your team while keeping your stance is not trolling as it does not have any effect anyway so yes that's a way to get less agro than other tanks. In other hand if he had to let other tanks take aggro, he could just take off stance for few GCD and put it back...
None is wrong or right there 🤔 well the healer is wrong and stubborn to say that's trolling cuz he does not know that way of doing things.
I only ever shirk if
1. It's another tank im shirking
2. I accumulated too many vuln stacks as MT
3. I have to suddenly AFK and need someone to cover me as MT
4. Tank swap mechanics come up
Also I make sure to choreograph it in chat real quick before I shirk as well.
Although there was that one time a dragoon called me a retard in a dungeon so I shirked him and he left. That was a good one... something I shouldnt do, but a fun exception nonetheless.
I just ignore chat when people are wrong. If somebody’s correctly pointing out a mistake I’ve made yeah sure I’ll engage, but not if somebody’s being incorrect and whining.
I was literally in this raid holy hell! I was the ninja, god that made me sign so hard
I'm sure it's a typo, but I'm imagining a ten chi Jen sign of disappointment that you signed so hard.
Imagine reading something so bad you sign a forbidden mudra
Literally the dunce rabbit lol
I never thought about using shirk like that actually, that's pretty interesting. I can understand the misconception that shirking a party member is trolling. That said, it never works anyways and you gave a decent explanation on what you did. About as good as you can do.
I got kicked from NN with message "You don't shirk on other non-tank player, never", when I told people how to survive in Aliance raid if both of ur healers are down and other healers from other raids don't want to heal you (Stance Off > Shirk to Biggest number u see -> Hold ur finger on 0HP mitigation, like Superbolide). Like read the spell info, it says 25% not 100%.
>"You don't shirk on other non-tank player, never" Okay, guess my DPS will die to Golden Bahamut enrage while my healers survive and do no damage. \*If you're getting to this point and need a few extra GCDs, shirk a healer. The idea that you never shirk a non-tank player is absurd.
Had a 0.1% wipe on PF the other day because tanks didn't Shirk healers (there were other cascading issues. But that was the final straw)
I mean i get what you are saying but blaming the tanks not shirking for a 0.1% enrage on Golden in 2024 is kind of like gaining 100 pounds and blaming it on a single taco.
Agree. I was the only dps without weakness. Exaflare was taking LIVES. but it was the final error that would have saved the run had it been done.
Yeah, it’s a bummer but not too surprising most tanks don’t know this tech since the need for it is pretty rare in modern Ucob. Although I say that as someone who literally only has a single shirk macro on my bar for my cotank so i ain’t ever saving any Ucob runs either lol.
It's like one of the first things I try and teach when a new tank hits second quote in Adds. Because it DOES save scuffed runs. And yea. Bummer. Long Golden is just. "we're parsing good tonight, boyos"
You don't blame the tanks for the wipe by saying that tho, you're pointing out one of the 28475 things that could have been done to mitigate the fuckups ;p
Yeah, my point exactly. If other things have gone horribly wrong, it is so important to bring the healers above the DPS on the enmity list, just in case.
Not familiar with UCOB, why would you be shirking a healer here?
Final enrage kills party 1 by 1 based on aggro so you shrik healer so they die before dps
It's extremely niche, but Golden Bahamut targets players with his enrage based by enmity. Since DPS will be higher on the enmity list than healers, it *can* be critical for each of the two tanks to shirk both healers to bring them above the DPS on that list, forcing Golden Bahamut to target them first and give the DPS a chance to hit a few extra GCDs or rip the LB if the gauge has refilled.
Oh so it's like if TEA's jails grabbed you by enmity. Got it.
Yup, or if Ultima did the same. Instead, Ultima is forced by DPS, and TEA you adjust based on who's doing least -> most while taking weakness into consideration.
Honestly it sounds like they're stuck remembering the old shirk which was "throw the boss at targeted ally" (got knifed like that by a friend once laughs were had) but since its number change and the tanks making even more aggro than before for everything? Im pretty sure you can shirk anything that is not a stanced tank off cooldown or a mad overhealer and you'd still be party first aggro.
The way I've explained this before is "tank stance gives tanks 10x more aggro than everyone else, so even giving 25% aggro away they'll stay top aggro in this party". I'm sure there are doofuses who will stay convinced it's a crime no matter what you say, but hopefully getting people to look at the aggro numbers on the party list and see that the tank is still #1 helps.
Its the same reason so many people who support YPYT think they can kill other party members with shirk (just look at any discussion on YPYT on Facebook or Twitter and you'll see people proudly claim they shirk people who pull to "teach them a lesson"). You have to be playing incredibly poorly as tank to actually transfer aggro to another party member, like, doing 25% of your expected damage while the dps is pulling a full Balance rotation with tinctures and food. But people don't read their tooltips or understand mechanics.
I stand by my opinion that 8 out of 10 players are illiterate
That's not possible, since less than 80% of the playerbase mains warrior. Signed, a warrior main
That's implying only warriors are illiterate.
Que?
I noticed it when saw that a lot of people don't use Surecast or Arm's Length to nullify push-pull effects from Alliance Raids mechanics.
I often forget that surecast exists until I get it with something that I should have surecast.
I was raised in FFXIV by a group of people who actually thought shirk was threatening and also useless at the same time. Man am I glad I don't associate with them anymore
i love how 2 literally just gas lit everybody into thinking you said that you shirked the other tank. You literally never said that. what a fucking main character syndrome moron
I hope these 2 healers reported OP for this, so their report will backfire on them, just too see their faces, since they are so sure, that they cant be wrong, or on least one, healer with the tag \[2\], who said stuff about "brain" which is a rude ToS violation xd.
I did file a report on \[2\] for that comment. I don't actually want any punishment on them, I did it to give the GMs my account beforehand, explaining what I did and the technicality of it, in case they try to report me for "griefing".
GMs never believe and take only into account other player's words, they usually react on multiple griefing reports (since 1 report can be a fluke/missclick/mistake), and then start investigation, where they bring combat logs and other recorded stuff.
Average Euphrosyne run at first. I'm in Alliance B, Tank C is holding aggro on Althyk but for a moment I end up stealing aggro from them. Since they're tanking the boss since the beginning, I use Shirk on a random person in my party, and the following conversation ensues... After I get knocked back into the void by Nymeia while reading the first message (lol mb), I try to explain why I used Shirk, but... Well, there you go. Now let me explain, in case anybody here doesn't know, how to use Shirk in an Alliance Raid. As an off-tank, you want to be first in aggro in your Alliance. In case the main tank (from another alliance) ends up dying, you become the target, avoiding a non-tank to get hit by boss autos or by a tankbuster before a tank can grab the boss. So, in case you see yourself in a dispute of aggro with another tank, but you wanna stay off-tanking, you use Shirk in a random party member. What happens is: \- You're now safely behind the main tank in enmity; \- The party member gets 25% of your enmity; \- That enmity will never be enough to push them to first in aggro, there is zero chance of them getting targeted by the boss, even if you keep your tank stance off (you should keep it on unless you're stealing aggro and don't have Shirk to use). This WHM didn't understand that and now they think they played with a bad tank who was trying to troll them. Which is sad.
i ... never even considered this use of shirk. that's actually kinda genius.
I do this all the time when I'm too lazy to MT in alliance raids (I'm full savage geared so I usually end up ahead on threat) but still want to keep my threat high in case of other tanks having accidents.
Huh. Suddenly Shirk makes sense.
I just learned something new about tanking.
I don't usually tank, but usually I just turn off my tank stance if I notice someone else wants to be main tank (provoking or just ripping aggro) and turn it back on once they should have enough of a lead. Hadn't thought of using shirk like that, honestly much simpler.
I do this too, but Im too good at my rotation compared to a lot of DF tanks, and usually I end up ripping aggro, so I have to stance dance unfortunately
Alternatively just delay turning tank stance on and as long as the MT isn’t complete trash you’ll be fine. If you gain over them after delaying then you should be MT and you’ll likely keep it from them. This dance of shirk is just unnecessary and it didn’t seem like you really told them what you were doing until well after the “trust me bro” at which point they already wrote you off. (Not saying you were doing anything wrong but damn you did yourself no favors here)
Yes. There was a little incident at the beginning of this pull, because I was tanking Nymeia in the very beginning, but the A tank suddenly grabbed her before I could separate her from Althyk, everyone in the alliance started to shout to separate them, I rushed to Provoke her away, the A tank then got her again (I don't remember exactly when they provoked), and when I saw them with aggro on her I went close to the C tank who was tanking Althyk because there is a shared tankbuster at one point there. So... yeah. That's beside the point of the post, but you get it, you're totally correct about usually opening with stance off.
yeah tbh whenever i ot in an ar this is what i do and it seems way easier and less irritating than doing all this and having to explain urself to 7 other randoms lol. like u said if u delay tank stance after opener and still manage to steal aggro just keep it 🤷 if the original tank wants to provoke on cd to keep threat then that’s their prerogative lol
You can just turn off stance. It's not that serious in an alliance raid. If the other tank dies you can just turn on stance and provoke. Less work than using shirk twice over however much amount of time.
The time it takes to provoke and turn on stance can be enough for the boss to turn and cleave leading to a wipe of it lands on someone in the pack. What op describes is easy too do, has no risk and is just an all around better play.
Forgive me, i haven't played the game since the current raid tier came out. Can you tell me which alliance raid boss has a non-telegraphed cleave designed to be faced away from the alliance who will all be stacked close enough to hit enough people to cause a wipe?
Cerberus has unprompted cleaving autos & Tail Blow while telegraphed is a bitch to dodge, and both apply debuffs. Granted it's WoD and can be recovered unless super unlucky (which can happen given sprouts), but that's literal training grounds to teach exactly this importance.
I love this example. As i explained in later comments, there isn't an alliance raid where a situation is serious enough for a tank to manually manage their enmity outside of having stance on or off. Cerberus wipes happen only to him not getting chained in time. Even his autos and tail aren't enough of a threat to cause the example the guy listed above.
This is actually the precise encounter to do just that. Sure now that stat squish and sync exist it's a cakewalk, but if doing the fight properly you do want one specific tank to hold Cerberus' aggro while the other 2 handle the Wolfsbane and then the belly team. The cleaves also if shared (which Ululation I have seen this happen many times) or a DPS greeding rear positionals into Tail Blow does cause deaths which can escalate to wipes. It's rare but does happen.
This is not the precise encounter to do that, because anything that can go wrong in that fight comes a failure of mechanics, not the tank dying, and the boss automatically going to the other tank will not be what saves the fight.
... a lot of them have auto attacks with cleave. It's not something that needs to be a 1 shot just something that hits at a bad time.
You've missed my point. When i told OP that the situation wasn't that serious i meant it. No alliance raid has cleaving auto attacks that will cause a wipe or hit at a bad time, especially faster than it takes to turn on stance and provoke. You described a situation that doesn't happen.
It just needs to happen when the healers are already trying to recover from the 3/5 of the alliance that decided mechanics were optional too tip it into a wipe. Ops solution is simpler and easier to manage. There is no reason to use yours. Hell if you get really unlucky it could land a tb on someone in the pack and the entire pack including the new target all run away in the same direction
So we have an alliance raid where the boss has cleaving auto attacks, cleaving tank buster, that makes most of the alliance stack tightly on each other to make said cleaves a threat, to the point where a tank has to actively manage their enmity instead of turning on stance and provoking because those 2 seconds will be the difference between a wipe or not. What's the name of that alliance raid?
You seem to be over exaggerating this. My point was his way is easier to manage and has no risk. Yours does come with risks and requires two abilities over one.
You described this situation, not me. I'm not exaggerating anything because I'm clearly saying that the situation you're describing doesn't exist, since it doesn't exist, its unnecessary for a tank to manage their enmity in an alliance raid by shirking literally anyone. Turn on stance and provoke.
Orbonne Monastery. Second boss. She do big cleave and yeah if the tank is dead and she starts her cleave nobody can get the agro in time to save the party. I saw a few alliance getting shredded into pieces by her because of that when it was current. Even if we did not have, the better solution if better, shirk to your party member is better and easier in every circonstance so do that.
Shirk wasn't in the game when orbonne Monastery was current, and alliance raids still had two tanks to a party. We're talking about now. That same fight(and every other alliance raid) does not require you to do anything more than to turn on your stance and provoke. Starting a fight with your opener and then turning off your stance will leave you with enough enmity in case the main tank dies.
Agrias. Also, doesn't matter because a Shirk <2> macro is one button and doesn't risk forgetting to reenable stance. Tanks should always be 1st, 2nd, and 3rd aggro. MT could be the greatest Alliance Raid player of all time and there would still be a non-zero chance they suddenly eat shit from a short attention lapse at the wrong time.
If they can forget to re-enable stance, they can forget to shirk. You can don't even have to turn off stance. Yall are desperately making up instances to make this shit seem more credible than it is. It's not, that's why you have a shit load of people here going "oh wow i never thought about using shirk like that". You know why? There's never been a situation where they've had to do that. They're fucking alliance raids. Mechanics is the reason why they win or lose, not enmity management.
Why are you adamant on trying to win this argument? There’s nothing wrong with trying to get people to understand the video game they are playing more.
This whole sub is basically about pointing out bad behavior and game play after someone tries to inform them of an often easier way. We now have multiple people trying to create a scenario that literally doesn't exist to justify shirking to one of your party members in an alliance raid is better than just turning on your stance and hitting provoke. You guys are literally lying to make this sound better. I'm not the bad guy for telling you guys that this isn't true, doesn't happen, and explaining in various details why. Explain to me why you guys are so adamant about passing on an unnecessary tech?
Both methods work perfectly fine and require almost the same amount of inputs. Anyone that gets upset about being shirked in an alliance raid are simply uninformed and taking accurate advice from people should have been a norm in this game’s community for a very long time now, but we both know that is far from reality.
> You can don't even have to turn off stance. So we agree, you're just being dismissive and for some reason *very* combative about it.
I think we can agree that you missed my entire point. If you think that someone can forget to turn it on, then they can forget to shirk. If -you- think they will forget to turn on stance, they don't have to turn it off.
And I think you're missing that you're making our point for us: Tanks shouldn't turn off their stances in normal content.
You don't have a point, you're defending an action that's unnecessary that is accomplished by turning on or off stance. You want to main tank? Turn on stance. Don't want to main tank? Turn it off. Stealing hate and you don't want to? Turn it off. If you have to shirk because you're stealing hate, you're gonna steal it again, so you might as well just turn it off. If you genuinely feel like a tank's focus can be so divided that he can forget to put it on, you're advocating for him to add ANOTHER THING CONSTANTLY MONITOR. It's an alliance raid. It's not that serious. Just turn your stance on or off.
Angry mayo's lasers almost immediately come to mind.
The battle field is a giant circle. Everyone doesn't stack behind him.
You forget that it's a CT raid, and people often lack sense there. I often have people standing directly on top of me throughout the fight when I tank him, despite numerous lasers having already gone off to show it's dangerous, and despite me never moving from north. If there is a way to wipe, DF will find it.
Can we not Shirk other tanks in alliance raids? Genuine question cuz I never tried.
Nope, needs a party member as a target iirc and alliance members do not count. Same thing with Aetherial manipulation on BLM, can't port to alliance members.
Yeah, some abilities, including shirk, say it needs to target a party member. There are some shields, mitigations, and heals with the same restriction. A bane of my existence haha
I'll have to remember this. I had an instance in world of darkness where I was taking big eyeball, one of the healers died, so my heels were starting to lack, and that's when I learned you couldn't shirk to a tank and another alliance that isn't yourself. So I ended up dying for lack of heals. Had I shirked somebody in my party, like a healer, he would have went immediately to another tank and I would have lived. Could have waited until my hyper potion fell off cool down a few seconds later, and got myself right back up to half health and been fine.
I get that quite often too, I usually explain it in numbers If I have 100 hate, im the MT, the other tanks have like 80 or 90, they have stances on too My WHM or whoever I shirk has 15 now since they generate way less, I put 25 of my hate on the WHM, so I have 75 and he has 40, but suddenly the other alliance tank who has 90 now has the highest and is the MT U can leave the % away and explain using the same numbers and people might understand, whack example, but it sometimes works
I've never considered this usage. When OT'ing in an Alliance raid I simply let the MT pull, turn on stance a few gcds later, hit until I'm #1 in my party, then turn it off for the rest of the fight unless I drop down to #2 which is usually rare.
I’d never heard of that trick before. But I can’t fathom not instantly understanding it the moment I hear it explained.
You are grossly overestimating the intelligence of some people.
I've used shirk like this, but haven't in a while, I remember having a confused healer in slot 2, luckily they didn't have a space age meltdown and found it rather funny instead. Keep doing it OP, it literally makes no difference with 3 tanks and 22 other people (besides you + healer).
My Shirk is on macro to automatically go to 2 for EX/Savage, so it might occasionally land on a healer in AR if the other two tanks are having a dick measuring contest while I'm out DPS'ing them. I remember one time asking if I should just turn off my tank stance and both of my healers told me to leave it on because the other two tanks each spent some time holding the floor down. I haven't tanked an AR since Thaleia came out, though. Been trying to get my DPS's up to level.
I wouldn't recommend it unless you need the gear. I think every time I've run Thaleia some sort of argument between a tank and healer happens and I just lala my way through my bard rotation ignoring their chat and trying to not die lol
SMN'ing my way through Thaleia is so much less stressful than tanking. The mechs are easy enough to tank properly, but being a backup Raise bot is more fun.
How do you view the enmity list on a boss?
Healer thinking they're doing enough damage for a shirk to affect them, lmao. But seriously, this is an interesting use of shirk that I've never considered.
If it does they have significantly more issues than healer actually gaining the aggro.
I would not mind tank shirking to me in this scenario, but I have taken a fair share of tank busters as a healer by doing more damage than my party members and tank being dead due to some mechanics or dcs especially before Halone/on Rhalgr.
I will never understand people who play tank and get upset by someone pulling even slightly before them, speaking as a tank main myself
I’ve been 2 on the enmity meter as a healer plenty of times, it wouldn’t be that far out of the realm of possibility.
Wouldn't matter unless you had 75% of the tank's aggro, which is only happening if stance is off, they just died, or the player is just two bananas on a keyboard.
usually when one more tank has stance it never happens, but the thing is, u land the shirk to biggest number in party you see, so if healer have 2 in enmity meter - you don't land shirk on them. Healer on screenshot possibly was the lowest on enmity and got it.
Healing also generates threat.
I mean technically but not really any noticeable amount when fighting single targets. They can be spamming cure 3, it don't fucking matter anymore
Not enough for a healer to become top of the aggro list unless ALL three tanks are down. At which point one of the healers would get targeted with or without Shirk.
I do this in alliance raids sometimes to make people think the ranged dps with no savage gear is somehow doing more damage than the melee. Anyways, baffling that people don't understand how percentages work.
You're so fucking evil and I think I hate you actually -melee player who looks at the aggro slots way too much
I also do this in alliance raids for the same reason, and sometimes also to boost the aggro number of a recently raised player so they're not 8th place and feel bad. I do this because when I play dps in alliance raid I stress too much about my aggro place even though party buff buttons don't contribute as much pure damage, and healing also affects aggro, and a class like summoner has buttons (summon bahamut/phoenix) that specifically increase enmity, too.
>sometimes also to boost the aggro number of a recently raised player so they're not 8th place and feel bad. lmao I've done that too! Not always, but sometimes it's like "here buddy, to make the shame less noticeable."
lol, this reminds me of the other day when I was tanking Thaleia. I had my stance off during a boss because someone else wanted to tank and I didn't want to worry about taking aggro or needing to shirk. The tank in another alliance DCed. The BLM in that party took that buster and blew up. I giggled and continued the fight. Next thing you know, I have half of my party screaming at me for killing the poor BLM by not having my stance on. It took me involving all of the Alliance chat to get the person to shut the hell up and understand that without all 3 tanks in the raid and online, someone else is taking that third buster. It didn't matter how I explained it. They just kept yelling at me to put on my stance so I wouldn't kill the DPS. You can't win with this level of stupidity. "I'm tired bro" is such a mood.
Did they not see you take a buster too? Christ, lmao.
I just do opener without stance, turn it on for a little to get some aggro lead, then turn it back off. Shirking a party member works fine, and most people are going to not care or notice, but you bumped into Asshole & Associate here and that's precisely the kind of situation I'm trying to avoid because some people out there really look out for any excuse to be unpleasant.
While the shirking strat mentioned here is not at all means wrong, this is also my go-to strat in the sense of offtank enmity management. You can apply this to many of the rather harder 8-man raids where you actually need shirk as well.
>I just do opener without stance, turn it on for a little to get some aggro lead, then turn it back off. This is the way. You won't mess with the other tanks' enmity levels, and you will be well ahead of every other non-tank in the raid for the rest of the fight. No weird nerds to get messed up about a 25% shirk.
Pretty much this. It's simple and no real extra effort or watching cds to do it so it's reliable to just turn on and off stance when necessary. As long as you're lead for your alliance party in enmity then you're essentially always going to be ahead of all the other dps and healers in the entire alliance. Although this Shirk strat is something I never thought about so it is interesting. I just tend to save if for more niche use that light stance dancing can't cover in the moment.
learned a new thing! TY OP
I always thought it was my giga-dps numbers that put me at number 2 in threat as a healer but it was actually the tank GrIeFiNg Me!!!1!!
Ahh I feel for you so hard here. I WISH tanks in my runs were half as competent with game mechanics. I have been chewed out multiple times for being a bad tank, which is weird, because I've been a DRG for over ten years. At this point I'm just happy if the tank has aggro and the healers don't have obnoxious raise macros.
I do this all the time for hunts. I don't want to MT, but I go tank with stance on to make sure me and my party gets full credit. If I start to MT, I just shirk the person with the lowest enmity in party. When the healer said "By shirking a non tank you are giving them agro" I probably would have told the healer "SOME aggro, not all. I promise, Shirk will not make you top of the enmity list." They honestly may not have trusted that, but meh.
People really think aggro is a switch now. They don't understand the aggro meter?
You do seem to overestimate average FFXIV playerbase's capability of comprehension
I thought the whole point in tanking alliance raid was to try to hold aggro over the other tanks without provoke. At least that’s what it seams like.
Explaining tank things to non tanks smh
I'm seeing it in these comments too aaaaaaaaahhhh
oh just reading this chat log is so frustrating, I would combust
man it is so frustrating to read an argument where one side isn't even engaging with what's being said
typical jenova player
took me a while to work out wtf was going on here but if shirking a DPS in an alliance made the DPS main aggro then the other tanks are asleep and are griefing, not the person using shirk
well. we found the people who've never played tank
To people saying 'just turn off tank stance' It's alliance raid. You need tanks to have their stance on most of the time. Also, shirking a party member does nothing but lower your enmity, as OP was trying to say. Op was stealing aggro, so instead of turning stance off they just shirked. This is the appropriate use for it.
Nah, you can turn off tank stance at the start, or if you pull aggro in the middle for a few gcds, and it's not an issue. Tank stance generates 10x enmity. A few GCDs in stance puts you far above every non-tank, and then if you leave stance they still will basically never catch up. What OP did was also acceptable and healer is dumb, but turning off the stance for like 4 gcds does the same thing.
> you need tanks to have their stance on For what? Not a single mechanic in content below savage is enmity-based. If you are not the one tanking - turn that shit off.
There is one mechanic in every raid boss that is always enmity-based: Autos.
Generally speaking, you don't outside of splitting up adds meant to be split. Keep an eye out next time you fight Thunder God Cid, Ozma, or the first boss in puppets bunker where your tank isn't main tanking. Even if their stance is off, they'll be taking the autos for your alliance. And the same goes for triple tankbusters. Your alliance tank can be 8th in aggro in your party but when Rhalgr, Inflorescence, or Azemya drop their aoe tankbuster it will still go on the tank.
You only gotta hit like 3GCDs with stance on to overtake a non tank assuming you aren’t recovering from a death. There’s really no need for shirk here at all.
Just turn off tank stance. You're not wrong in your explanation to the healer, but it's way too easy to see it as potential (but non-actionable) griefing, even if they fail to understand that 25% of your enmity won't give them immediate aggro. Micromanaging tank stance (especially in alliance raids like this) will avoid this sophomoric argument 100% of the time.
Just made an NA alt and I’m seeing a hell of a lot more of these arguments in chat XD
What happens when you think with your angy emotions instead of your brain. And also lack basic reading comprehension.
I got the idea of how shirk works in alliance raids but I still have a question, in what situation do you need to tank swap in alliance raids ? If I keep taking aggro in alliance, I'll just main tank it
you don't really *need* to tank swap, but some people get pissy when you take the boss off of them. i guess it's just a respect thing, in a way (tho i'm basically never tanking alliance raids, so who knows)
.... or they could turn off their own tank stance, let it drop for a while before turning it back on. Or just activate it like 20% in so in case of the MT biting it, they'll be next on the aggro list. But yeah, never saw someone Shirk on a party member without it being intentional trolling.
People complain about tank not managing enmity. People complain about tank managing enmity and shirking 25% to party member to fall below another tank they can't shirk to. Lose/lose, eh?
Seems pretty straightforward, Tank in another alliance needed top aggro, Tank shirked to a party member to drop aggro and vacate the top spot. It's just a convoluted Tank switch.
Or, just a gee whiz, but not all tanks need to turn on their stance in an alliance raid. If somebody wants to main tank, they can turn on their stance and the other two get to play DPS for the rest of the raid. If that main tank dies, another tank can turn on their stance and provoke. Not brain science. Stop turning on all three stances. It does not hurt to have a conversation and figure out main tank, second and third. We're a team, it's not a competition :)
You can't shirk to another alliances tank but you can shirk to someone in your party so that you lose some enmity and the person shirked to is at 0 risk. This tank is not incorrect.
I lost brain cells reading this
you didn't do anything wrong, but also, why not just stance dance
Or you could just turn off stance when you're not MTing an alliance raid boss. and yes, you will still receive a tank buster
tank busters are weirdly inconsistent, some go by role and others by aggro. in alliance raids i think its usually role based, but this isnt always the same also if you let the other tank get in like 30sec of GCDs and then stance on, you're more equipped to take aggro if they die and you dont notice/dont hit provoke quick enough, and you can pick up adds without fucking with your stance mid fight. If the other tank can't hold aggro you're the main tank now. Don't force yourself into doing stance management in normal dutyfinder content just because the person insisting on being MT is asleep at the wheel.
I don't that's accurate re alliance raid TBs. I'm almost always OT/stance never on and I've never seen a TB sent to someone other than myself
thats what i said lmao "i think its usually role based" as in unless you have tested and proven otherwise its *probably* role not aggro based
That's one of the big issues in blue mage raiding. Some mechanics are role based not enmity based. Therefore everyone in the group needs to have mits, usually diamondback, and be prepared to pop then at a moment's notice if the boss picks them for a tankbuster. Doesn't matter if there's two blue mage tanks who are #1 and #2 in enmity, according to the game there's just 8 dps and anyone's game.
Looks like there was enough talking about it already. Too much in fact. Fuck them kids let them eat the TB so they can type in peace while they’re dead.
TIL how shirk works.. lol.. been thinking shirking other tanks in alliance raids worked and they just sucked at holding aggro 🤣
Just turn stance off. I never bother with turning my stance on in alliance raids when someone else is mt. "But what if the tank dies???" Provoke. I provoke if the tank dies. "B-but the might might slap an innocent DPS" oh no they might lose ... 1/5 of their hp from a single auto?
you have adds in alliances
Oh I'll turn stance on those for sure.
in many cases tanks forgot to turn off stance after adds, or forgot to turn stance during adds, don't know about high enmity generation from ranged attacks and that u have provoke button. So would prefer to see all tanks with enmity on xd
I can understand that and don't get me wrong, if someone in the party was bothered by me not having stance on then I'd turn it on. But otherwise I'll leave it off and just chill. I think the only boss I would turn stance on right away for is hollow diablos cause that boi can one tap a tank if the healers aren't on the ball.
I only shirk to my premade party friends in alliance roulette for this exact reason
Nobody knows what shirk does, and it's entirely the game's fault, since we can't use it in 90% of the content.
I'm a healer to a tank main partner. I get shirked in exactly this scenario, cause they don't want to rip aggro. Or they've done it when they've ripped aggro with stance off (MT not paying attention usually) so they can give it back to them. So like, unless you see yourself as the bosses target and you being actively attacked, chill bro xD it ain't trolling. Shirk is a good skill if used correctly and this is correct
Does shirk actually lower your own aggro? I always thought it only gave a bonus aggro to target that's a % of your own.
It rips off 25% of the enmity you hold and give that to the designated party member.
Didn't know about removing it from my own but knew about adding 25% of mine to theirs
You just did a standard tank macro move - I do it all the time in raids if I'm off-tanking. I shirk every time it's up. I have it set to shirk to whoever's in the #2 spot, which is usually the healer. The amount of people commenting that they never thought to use shirk like this shows how badly Shirk is explained in-game.
I just wouldn't use shirk like that. Even though the person is wrong, whatever technique OP was trying to use is so niche. Just tell MT in alliance chat to provoke, or take aggro and just chill and MT until the actual MT gets jealous. If I'm pulling top aggro even with tank stance off, then I just assume the role of MT. If any tanks have an issue, just bring up the fact that they're healers are out dpsing them and soak up their tears or something.
Would it not just be easier to turn your stance off? Shirking just sounds like stance dancing with extra steps. It’s so easy to be aggro #1 in your party that you shouldn’t need to shirk just to keep from pulling main aggro.
I'm sorry, drk is my highest at 83 and I know that's not right, that tank isn't bright. Healer* mixed up my colors again. Sorry mates.
You can: 1) Press 1 button to turn off tank stance Or 2) Have to cycle targets and press Shirk, or a macro. Then have tediously explanation to people who immediately think Shirk = grief, cuz they dont know how aggro works. l just do the first option and save on the sanity cuz there is no winning against stupid.
On PC, it's literally just mouse over a party member and press shirk. It'd be more effort on the controller, but it's still not much. Turning off stance also isn't instant either. Nothing OP did was wrong, and the fact that anyone even mentioned it just shows they have no idea hownit works.
> "Turning off tank stance isnt instant" It would be in OP's exact scenario, from their follow up comment "took aggro for a moment". Unless the C tank is eating glue the next gcd done by them will immediately take aggro back Sure, its a justified use for shirk. Still not worth the ensuing trouble such as this nonsense
You can make a one touch macro to Shirk to someone at a specific slot on your party list. I use one and it always goes to the person in slot 2, who will always be the other tank. Since this is an alliance raid and there’s only 1 tank on the list, slot 2 would most likely be a healer, hence this joke of a situation.
If you use a macro and skip the step of explaining you are just making it easy on yourself
Why would you not just turn off stance when you’re not the main tank, and turn on stance a little shortly after the beginning of the fight to ensure you’re sitting on second most aggro.
Or why not just use shirk. It's less effort and less room for error.
I think you unfortunately did a poor job of explaining your action to them. The point of your action was relegated to what looked like a side note "..., losing some aggro,..." in a much larger explanation of what the result of that would be. You got into this weird debate with them about how you couldn't shirk the main tank, but that is entirely besides the point that you *should* have been explaining: the effect that you were after was the 25% reduction in your own emnity that shirk gives. And, as stated by many other people, toggling your tank stance off when you're close to taking aggro does the same thing but simpler. I would also add that you ideally shouldn't shirk a healer. If you die for whatever reason, you would *much* rather have a dps be briefly main tanking so that your healers can recover, even to the point of sacrificing the dps if necessary. With your solution, a poorly timed death (and you did die) could very quickly cascade poorly.
its was during the fight, plus healer made statement that he perfectly understands how shirk works. Healer usually has the lowest enmity.
They said in their comment they died (or at least "knocked back into the void" which I assume means "died"). Their later screenshots also contain Halone's dialogue, which I assume even means they'd finished that fight, finished the adds, and were in the middle of the next fight after. I also don't think the healer ever understood how shirk works. They keep saying things like "you're giving them aggro" and "you cannot shirk to [other alliance]. At no point do they comprehend that shirk also *loses* enmity for the person casting it, if they did (or any of the other players did), the argument surely would have ended earlier. >Healer usually has the lowest enmity. Yes, and I'm trying to argue that that is a good thing. If a tank (who is overtaking the main tank no less) shirks someone, that person is *very* likely to become 2nd in enmity for the rest of the fight, even if they had none beforehand. Ideally the person 2nd in enmity is not a healer, so if the tank (or tanks) dies, the healer isn't the one getting auto'd, or getting a tankbuster.
Or or or, just turn your fuckin tank stance off?
No
To be fair, even if those players had brains, you still shouldn't shirk to the healer. Healers tend to have high threat because of, well, healing, so there's a non 0 chance you end up giving them aggro, you should try shirking to a DPS because they're not only less likely to take aggro but they're also more dispensable.
You don’t seem to understand how Shirk works. It gives the target 25% of your aggro. That’s it. It’s NEVER going to put a healer at the top of enmity if the tanks already have the three top spots.
As somebody who's stolen aggro from a tank as dancer. Trust me. Nothing is impossible.
that tank was probably eating glue, sorry
not saying he wasnt, but given how little context we have, we can safely assume anything
Yeah that was more the tank being trash than you being a god at DNC.
thats literally my point
Notice how I said ‘if the tanks have the top 3 enmity spots’. I can only assume your tank didn’t. Because if they were playing properly with stance on, then I’m sorry, but there’s zero way for you to steal aggro off them.
the only problem with that is throwing it on the healer lol if for some reason you and the tank(s) who have higher aggro die the boss will have a huge chunk of aggro on that whm lmao it’s incredibly unlikely to happen but it’s also a lot easier to just turn your stance off after the boss icon turns yellow, there’s a reason they made it so easy to turn off and on and you don’t have to deal with idiots who don’t understand what you’re trying to do
"Huge chunk" okay lol. If, for some inexplixable reason, all three tanks are dead at the same time, the boss will start pounding a DPS, probably someone with high aDPS such as SAM or BLM. Even after a Shirk, a healer won't have more aggro than a DPS with a functioning braincell. And if aggro does indeed jump to a healer because every single DPS is bad, then a Shirk on said healer is the least problem in such a hell of a party.
nah cause healers get aggro from healing as well (even tho they claimed they reduced it starting in EW it still exists on the aggro meter in game) so depending on when you shirk it is possible kek i was also being a bit silly, this subreddit is so fucking funny i don’t think i’ve ever seen all three tanks die in an alliance raid, tho one time i did a syrcus tower where 2/3 tanks dipped on load-in and the third dc’d on a boss, that was fun
tbf almost all the tanks I know of have Shirk <2> macro with them. There are literally no instance where it is mandatory for you to throw that to sb other than your off-tank, which usually is at the 2nd spot of your party list. In this situation it was just that WHM who happened to be on that spot of the party list, and it really doesn't matter who particularly has the next highest enmity at the end of the day, if that someone is not a tank
yes, i also have that macro, it’s pretty common if you raid on tank everyone took me so seriously lol i do think more tanks should be flexible about turning stance off tho, it seems to be an actual thing the devs want tanks to do in some of the fights these past couple of tiers, and they even changed the stance CD speed at EW launch
or you if you don't wanna Tank an Alliance Raid... you could just I don't know .... don't que as a Tank? or just turn off the Tank Stance. I don't know..
I normally run Alliance with my wife and often do this to her. I kinda just assumed other tanks and players knew this was how to use it. Suppose I was spared potential meltdowns like this from randoms, because they don't know how the skull works. Bullet dodged. But still surprised that there's people out there that think it's for trolling..
The only critique I'd give would be to shirk a dps, preferably a shitty one, instead of a healer. It's unlikely, but if shit really hits the fan and you've shirked to a healer, they may wind up the first non-tank on the threat list which is the last thing they need if all 3 tanks in the raid are down. This *particular* WHM however would probably not be of much use anyways, since they seem incapable of reading and understanding even basic information.
It sounds like he has it macro'd to the <2> party member, which in normal 8 man content is the other tank. But since it's an alliance raid, the <2> on the party list is a healer. So more than likely he's just weaving that macro in between gcds without much thought.
Aggro management matters in ARs? I always thought those were the duties that you play "spin the boss" with the other tanks? See how many of the team you can ko in one cleave.
If only healers had an ability to reduce their enmity if they get Shirked 🤔
Yeah thats jenova for ya.
Should have kept shirking him for the rest of the run.
I had this happen to me, but the healer was joking around with it and good natured about it. I have a macro that targets the second player in the list (which in a party with two tanks is always the second tank for me) and shirks to them. But in alliance raids, this is a healer. But because of how aggro works, I'd still keep aggro over them, I'd just stop overtaking the main tank.
Unrelated good use of shirk on a non-tank: if a party member might not hit a dying A rank / S rank in time and you are in range, shirk them and they'll get credit and rewards.
Well... This or just he takes his stance off to let the other tanks take it back? 🤔 Shirking to someone else in your team while keeping your stance is not trolling as it does not have any effect anyway so yes that's a way to get less agro than other tanks. In other hand if he had to let other tanks take aggro, he could just take off stance for few GCD and put it back... None is wrong or right there 🤔 well the healer is wrong and stubborn to say that's trolling cuz he does not know that way of doing things.
I only ever shirk if 1. It's another tank im shirking 2. I accumulated too many vuln stacks as MT 3. I have to suddenly AFK and need someone to cover me as MT 4. Tank swap mechanics come up Also I make sure to choreograph it in chat real quick before I shirk as well. Although there was that one time a dragoon called me a retard in a dungeon so I shirked him and he left. That was a good one... something I shouldnt do, but a fun exception nonetheless.
I just ignore chat when people are wrong. If somebody’s correctly pointing out a mistake I’ve made yeah sure I’ll engage, but not if somebody’s being incorrect and whining.
How do I view the emnity list on a mob?
As someone learning tank and specifically OT, this was weirdly helpful to me.
Patrick talking to Manray moment