Why having a dedicated MT and dedicated OT is a TERRIBLE idea

The status quo doesn't leave much room for choice, either. Slashing forces most groups to run a WAR. Stormblood was supposedly built around the mindset that "every tank should be able to do everything", but this has been preferentially applied at best.

This game is supposedly designed around two tanks. If your tank can "do it all", there's no point in a second tank. I would be in favour of every tank having some deficit in their kit, leaving some slack that their co-tank can pick up. At the very least, it represents a change, and anything is better than the attempts at "balance" that we've had through Heavensward and Stormblood.

Any tank is good, depends on player skill, making tanks "easier" only makes the job more boring, we need more to do, not less.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lyth

The status quo doesn't leave much room for choice, either. Slashing forces most groups to run a WAR. Stormblood was supposedly built around the mindset that "every tank should be able to do everything", but this has been preferentially applied at best.

---

Well obviously. Stating that I dont want two sub classes of tanks officially designed is not the same thing as being fine with the current status quo tanking dynamic. The fact that the situation isnt perfect now doesnt mean we should make it worse. Though slashing is hardly the reason people prefer warrior. Since you are plainly referencing Meta Comps (otherwise Drk is perfectly acceptable), then you have to include ninja which negates the overhyped slashing. And if you arent talking about meta comps, then there are TWO out of 4 melees that bring slashing to the table. It is quite uncommon to require a warrior for slashing. Besides that I have on multiple occasions stated that all damage specefic, 100% uptime buffs should just be deleted as they are utterly pointless at best (3 sources of slashing) and RESTRICT PARTY CHOICE at worst (Read: Drg+brd). You can take the slashing debuff away, I'd welcome it as it would support my desire for wider party choice.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lyth

This game is supposedly designed around two tanks. If your tank can "do it all", there's no point in a second tank. I would be in favour of every tank having some deficit in their kit, leaving some slack that their co-tank can pick up. At the very least, it represents a change, and anything is better than the attempts at "balance" that we've had through Heavensward and Stormblood.

---

You have always clung to the idea that one tank must have a deficit somewhere to 'create' space for someone else. I fundamentally reject that notion and in fact see it as a direct path to greater imbalance as one deficit will be 'less' detrimental than another and 1 strength will always be 'more' beneficial. Classic example is HW pld vs HW warrior. HW pld strength was party support with 'deficit' in damage. War was the opposite. Playerbase strongly preferred 1 strength (DPS) and gave no Fs about Pld's support strength. Its a recipe for failure and has been proven so in any game that implemented it. At best, it creates a situtation where specific jobs are good at specific encounters. At worst it deletes some jobs from use broadly. If both warrior and Pld had similar damage, similar support, then they would both be playable. And that is before we add in playerbase trying to break the system by finding a way to do 2 MT or 2 OT combos to, again, leverage the strengths they desire and ignore the weaknesses they dont care about.

There is no way to delete the meta. There will always be a slightly more optimal combo, but we can be sure the difference between meta and non-meta comps is measured in inches, not miles. Building in weaknesses guarantees it wont be inches.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Izsha

You have always clung to the idea that one tank must have a deficit somewhere to 'create' space for someone else. I fundamentally reject that notion and in fact see it as a direct path to greater imbalance as one deficit will be 'less' detrimental than another and 1 strength will always be 'more' beneficial. Classic example is HW pld vs HW warrior. HW pld strength was party support with 'deficit' in damage. War was the opposite. Playerbase strongly preferred 1 strength (DPS) and gave no Fs about Pld's support strength. Its a recipe for failure and has been proven so in any game that implemented it. At best, it creates a situtation where specific jobs are good at specific encounters. At worst it deletes some jobs from use broadly. If both warrior and Pld had similar damage, similar support, then they would both be playable. And that is before we add in playerbase trying to break the system by finding a way to do 2 MT or 2 OT combos to, again, leverage the strengths they desire and ignore the weaknesses they dont care about.

---

the problem of HW is that was in theory, but in reality WAR have the best support of the expansion too, with having the most reliable at costless source of slashing debuff and the best defensive buff with storm path, PLD just wasn't able to compete against that so all his support was consider trash.

It's more than a notion. It's a fundamental part of game design. Every job needs to have strengths and weaknesses. If you can do everything on one job, why play anything else?

The devs tried to balance Heavensward around the erroneous idea that WAR was a purely offensive tank while PLD was more defensive. In fact, since 2.1, WAR has had and still has the strongest defensive toolkit. You swapped PLD or DRK depending on the fight, but you could always rely on WAR to be able to mitigate everything, while doing the highest dps.

The problem that we're having is that the devs seem to throw in new actions to expand WAR's capabilities without actually going back to look at how the skillset is balanced as a whole. The power balance shifts, but never changes. It's good to have reasons to bring a WAR. But you also need reasons to not bring a WAR. That's how you get diversity. That's how you get choice. And in fairness, that's how the other two tanks work.

It is a fundamental part of game design.

But you are looking far to narrowly. A tank that can generate enmity, mitigate damage, and deal damage (less than a dps), and support the party in some minor capacity (shields, TBN, etc) isnnt a 'jack of all trades' job. Its a tank. It has weaknesses because its not as good at healing as a healer. Its not as good at damage as a DPS. Tanks already have deficits in that other roles do other things better. They have strengths in that they tank better. You are right it is game design, but that is the purpose of the triad. Its already built in.

You dont need to keep subdividing further. Any other differences only purpose are purely to have unique jobs that are fun to play. War is bursty, Pld is sustained damage. But they do the same damage. One doesnt need to do more damage and then give up defense or support to compensate. Even if (hypothetically) warrior was a more sustained dps class like pld they can both occupy that space as pld will do it with magic and shield procs to stay feeling pld and war could still do it with gauge and FCs. One doesnt have to 'give up' sustained damage to 'make space' for the other. They can coexist and just be different flavors. But that concept has routinely eluded you for months.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Izsha

War is bursty, Pld is sustained damage. But they do the same damage.

---

And that is actually imbalanced. Burst damage is better for damage checks and makes better use of party buffs. When the tank with the sustained damage doesn't make overall more damage over a long fight than the tank with the burst damage, then there is no point in bringing the tank with the sustained damage. You just lose out on the ability to burst through damage checks.

So either give the tank without burst damage more damage overall, or something else like better defense or better party support.

In other words: WAR is actually better in sustained AND burst damage than PLD.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tint

And that is actually imbalanced. Burst damage is better for damage checks and makes better use of party buffs. When the tank with the sustained damage doesn't make overall more damage over a long fight than the tank with the burst damage, then there is no point in bringing the tank with the sustained damage. You just lose out on the ability to burst through damage checks.

So either give the tank without burst damage more damage overall, or something else like better defense or better party support.

In other words: WAR is actually better in sustained AND burst damage than PLD.

---

You are completely missing the point. The topic in question is about the benefits or lack of benefits in splitting tanks into additional sub roles, not a referendum on the current balance right this second. If war is doing 'to much damage' then you nerf wars damage. You dont claim it is a 'strength' then go give it a 'weakness' to compensate because players will judge one to be more important than the other. If wars do to much damage the solution is simple. Either nerf war damage or buff other tank damage. Not say "well tank1 does less damage and Tank2 tank does more damage. Give tank1 a party shield and that will 'balance' the tanks. No. If damage is the issue address damage. If party buffs are the issue then adjust the party buffs. Dont adjust the party shield to address a damage discrepency. Apples to apples. Oranges to oranges. Thats the only way you can ever hope to have any balance.

If war has 2 apples and 1 orange and pld has 2 oranges and 1 apple, thats not balance. Players will decide they like apples and warrior will be better than pld even if you give pld 3 oranges.

Pretty sure if we use the apple and oranges analogy we have WAR with 2 apples and 2 oranges. They have a plethora of mitigation and attack options for any situation which isn't always true for the other 2.

Yes, which is exactly why all tanks should have 2 apples and 2 oranges in the epansion. Not MTs with 2 apples and OTs with 2 oranges. This is about how to design them in the future. The stormblood ship has sailed.