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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by whiskeybravo

Unchained is a nice threat boost, but Tomahawk>Equilibrium>Deliverance works without it. By your logic it'd be acceptable to have Fight or Flight and Requiescat share a timer. Hell, it's not a far fetch from Blood Price/Blood Weapon being locked to their respective stances which most of the community wants changed as well.

But hey, let's keep the boogeyman alive.

---

by my logic? PLD already pay a lot of dps by pulling with the GCD of the oaths and the sad potency of rage of halone and if you wanna bost it more the waste of several GCD with fight or flight, in 4.0 that was comparable to a WAR have to use unchained to set a proper amount of agro and swap to deliverance at the cost of lose 1 inner release, yes they work without it like everything but that dosen't make it efective.

the point is the PLD status at pulling come from WAR being buffed like that, and much later DRK leaving PLD the last one without having some love in that area, SB make a lot of bad choices and by my logic no, nothing related to tank stances is acceptable right now, there is a big inbalance when we talk about tank stances but since they are not optimal nobody cares, and looks like its the fault of PLD being so poor on pulling when it was the result of trowing buffs to WAR in the first place and later on on DRK.

Is pulling in Sword Oath as a PLD some kind of flex? Because that ends badly most of the time unless you only play on a static with a Ninja and no BRD.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by shao32

by my logic?

---

Yes. If it's "a bad idea" for WAR to be able to use 2 DPS increasing abilities at the same time, then it should be for PLD and DRK as well. If by chance you don't feel that FoF/Req is a problem, or if you feel that Blood Price and Blood Weapon should be separated, then it's consistent to think that IR/Unchained change was appropriate in that regard.

Additionally, even if we accept that IR/Unchained needs to go in order to "knock WAR down a peg" - that doesn't solve the underlying issue of other tanks having a poor "pull game". If we accept the premise of MT/OT split, you're going to be stuck with 2 tanks that probably have a weak "pull game" too. So what exactly is going to solve your concern?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lyth

You seem to be getting into the habit of labelling posts that you disagree with as dishonest. I'm all for having a good debate, but let's keep these attacks out of it.

---

To say that the war community wanted unchained to be free of cost IS dishonest, which is why I called it out. That's not how it went down. Unchained was useless because it meant losing IR, which was in no way whatsoever an acceptable trade off. There was already the cost of losing gauge to activate on top of the general losses associated with swapping to tank stance. In regards to selective commenting, yes I don't want to spend all my time on this article because 1) I don't actually think it's likely to happen and 2) there are plenty of obvious contradictions being pointed out (like the above) that just keep getting hand-waived away, which is creating a pretty repetitive conversation.

Quote:

---

Players asked for several different things with regards to Unchained, Inner Release, Shake it off, and WAR's stance costs. Whose fault was it? Was it the prominent streamers who campaigned for it? The playerbase which echoed and copypasted those demands? Or the devs for actually listening? It's hard to say, but I didn't see any WAR players arguing that the changes were too powerful after the fact.

---

It was obvious they wanted to reduce tank dps coming in to the expansion, I was one of the few on this forums actually arguing on behalf of SE for the community to suck it up and deal with it. There were ways to mitigate the wonky gauge costs and realistically it only caused a problem in those moments where a tank died and the other tank had to pick up threat quick. I've been one of the few to consistently argue on behalf of the other tank jobs to bring them up to the level of WAR - because it's actually a well designed job. Chrono Rising made a great post capturing how synergistic WARs kit was, and that the other tanks should also focus around those kind of synergies on their own.

That being said, I don't recall seeing any bandwagon of WARs asking for themselves to be nerfed after the fact. Has that happened with an "OP" job in any game? Ever?

Quote:

---

Regardless of how you want to spin it, they were a bad set of decisions. As far as tank balance goes, anything that erodes WAR's set of systemic advantages built over Heavensward and Stormblood and brings tanks into parity is going to be a good thing.

---

We both agree there is a point of balance that needs to be achieved/strived for, we just disagree on how to get there. I think they should look at what made WAR successful and emulate that on the other jobs.

Quote:

---

Anything that puts checks and balances such that no one tank is good at everything is going to be a good thing.

---

I actually wanted to address this separately because it's more or less the crux of my half of the argument. "No one tank that's good at everything" means that you won't actually be able to play the job you want. You'll only be able to play the job that's more effective in a given situation. Is that really what you're hoping for? To be locked in specific jobs, for specific roles, instead of being able to play whatever job you prefer - with the confidence that you can handle anything thrown your way?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SleepyNeko

Is pulling in Sword Oath as a PLD some kind of flex? Because that ends badly most of the time unless you only play on a static with a Ninja and no BRD.

---

Kinda, yea. If you want to succeed then you have to lay it down like a boss.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by whiskeybravo

snip

---

depend, if the reward is equal in both side then yes im ok, if its desigual then nope, SE make a big mistake by buffing WAR like that and don't adress DRK and PLD on that too, but leaving that apart this is a counter point of some ppl that argue OT and low enmity are related when the reality is not and this was a more or less equal situation at the begining that turn in to the adventage of WAR and later on DRK being more or less equiparable leaving the tank with a kit suited to a OT having worse pull of all tanks in the end.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by shao32

depend, if the reward is equal in both side then yes im ok, if its desigual then nope, SE make a big mistake by buffing WAR like that and don't adress DRK and PLD on that too, but leaving that apart this is a counter point of some ppl that argue OT and low enmity are related when the reality is not and this was a more or less equal situation at the begining that turn in to the adventage of WAR and later on DRK being more or less equiparable leaving the tank with a kit suited to a OT having worse pull of all tanks in the end.

---

Now we're making P R O G R E S S

Yes, it was unfair of SE (whether they knew it or not) to create such a disparity between the tanks in this particular area. But I think we can now agree that such a powerful tool is beneficial to tanking as a whole. It makes tanking more engaging to play (for people that enjoy contributing damage, at least), slightly more technical for those that like to optimize, and easy enough for newbie tanks to pick up and establish a strong lead against better DPS players. It has a lot more benefits than drawbacks. Really the only drawback isn't even in the ability, but in the disparity that only 1 tank can optimally perform in this area. All tanks would benefit from a strong "pull game".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by whiskeybravo

Now we're making P R O G R E S S

Yes, it was unfair of SE (whether they knew it or not) to create such a disparity between the tanks in this particular area. But I think we can now agree that such a powerful tool is beneficial to tanking as a whole. It makes tanking more engaging to play (for people that enjoy contributing damage, at least), slightly more technical for those that like to optimize, and easy enough for newbie tanks to pick up and establish a strong lead against better DPS players. It has a lot more benefits than drawbacks. Really the only drawback isn't even in the ability, but in the disparity that only 1 tank can optimally perform in this area. All tanks would benefit from a strong "pull game".

---

since i consider tank stances a complety waste of space and a outdated mechanic for a game that have a combat system like we have i think unchained is a exclusive broken skill that don't have any comparation and i was glad it have such trade off at the begining of the expansion since it was pretty broken in HW, now we back to the same and despite they buffed DRK the job is still unable to macth the benefics of unchained, so i think unchained need to disapear at the same time we need a tank stance rework or ajustment to fit better in the game combast system.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by whiskeybravo

...

---

The community was demanding a lot of different things. The most common request was certainly to decouple Inner Release and Unchained, but people also raised the argument that "if you're not going to uncouple the two abilities, you should at least make Unchained better. So they tried to satisfy you, by removing the cost from both IR and Unchained.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by whiskeybravo

I like unchained for mass pulls, though it was admittedly better with bloodbatch self healing. If they aren't going to untie the CD they should at least attempt to improve unchained enough to not make it entirely useless. I think baking a bloodbath effect into unchained would be good. Although I'm sure some people would be upset they couldn't use it to sustain themselves longer in deliverance. But it's an easy way to work in a desirable effect that people miss none-the-less

---

Hey, look, it's you, circa 2017.

Of course, then some other people came along and said that it wasn't enough. And when they uncoupled the abilities, they didn't revert back the costs.

Either way, the accusations are a rhetorical device that we can do without.

It doesn't matter what tanks can do individually. What matters is what they can do relative to each other. If you want enmity generation to have a cost attached, then it should probably be that way across the board. If you want it to be free, it should be free across the board. Alternatively, if you're able to generate enmity for free while other tanks have to expend dps to do so, you probably should start out at a dps disadvantage to offset this. There has to be some sort of counterbalancing element to offset the advantage.

Personally, I'd be in favour of just removing stances altogether and replacing them with a burst enmity cooldown on each tank which adds an enmity multiplier while it's active.

While I understand that some people just want their job to be the most powerful, I think it's smart to rein yourself in. If you're fair and balanced in your suggestions, people who don't play your job are more likely to view your points credibly. I think WAR players developed a bit of a reputation post 4.2, both here and on reddit, that I don't think was in your best interests for the long term.

For me, personally, I'd prefer DRK to not be "the most powerful tank" at any point. I'd rather it be viewed as the "highest skill" tank. That's why, even now, there are some things that I'd like to see nerfed on the job. And again, I don't envy you 4.2's ungabunga. You only have yourselves to blame for that one.

I don't think that you can achieve an upward balance of only buffs. Eventually, you find yourself in a world where you have five tank busters per fight covered with invulns, bubbles that ignore every other raidwide, and DPS job level burst in exchange for mashing your forehead against the keyboard. Let's bring the skill back into tanking. Part of this means encounter design which actually requires us to tank. But part of this also means pruning back some of our capabilities such that we're not quite so powerful anymore.

I'd have to go back through that conversation to get the full context, but I don't disagree with that particular statement. No other job was required to sacrifice their entire damage potential in exchange for a niche threat boosting ability. So yea, if they weren't going to uncouple them then they should've made them more equal in benefit.

I also notice you use the phrase "across the board" a few times. Careful now, you're starting to sound in favor of more homogenization.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lyth

For me, personally, I'd prefer DRK to not be "the most powerful tank" at any point. I'd rather it be viewed as the "highest skill" tank. That's why, even now, there are some things that I'd like to see nerfed on the job. And again, I don't envy you 4.2's ungabunga. You only have yourselves to blame for that one.

---

I don't disagree with you. When DRK first came out it was, in my opinion, THE highest skill tank. I tried raiding the first alex savage on DRK and it didn't take me long to realize I was pretty terrible at it and needed to spend a lot more time with it if I wanted to be good. While I don't take up the greatsword too often, but it's undeniably more basic now than it used to be. And tbh I feel similar about the change to IR. It actually had some challenge to it trying to maximize gauge generation and expenditure originally, and they just completely dumbed it down to one-button spam. Inconsequential as it is, one of the things that grinds my gears is how utterly broken Berserk became pre-70. Just me, but it was one of the most frustrating things when I was leveling up my WAR alt. I never take it into lower level stuff, I'd rather sit there and spam Halone.

Maybe that's one reason I'm defensive about Unchained. Sure we got it for free, at the expense of one of WARs other core abilities being absolutely neutered in return lol.

Does anyone remember when Red Mage would do everything they could to rip hate at the start of a fight, and then blame whatever tank lost aggro if they *didn't* go all in for that initial threat? Yeah, Savage PUGs weren't fun.

I feel like "The dev team doesn't play like the community does" is nothing new or surprising. So that they're trying to hardlock OT and MT roles isn't too surprising.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ekimmak

Does anyone remember when Red Mage would do everything they could to rip hate at the start of a fight, and then blame whatever tank lost aggro if they *didn't* go all in for that initial threat? Yeah, Savage PUGs weren't fun

---

Back when diversion was 50% I'd believe it.

Tank dps isn't worth throttling DPS dps. There will never be a point that this isn't true. But don't worry, because threat's a joke now, and that's not likely to change anytime soon.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kabooa

Back when diversion was 50% I'd believe it.

Tank dps isn't worth throttling DPS dps. There will never be a point that this isn't true. But don't worry, because threat's a joke now, and that's not likely to change anytime soon.

---

Perhaps. But I still have very unhappy memories of Red Mage ruining a pull, because they put out *just* enough dps to pull threat for a moment, pulling the boss away from me so I can't finish my combo, and hold aggro.

Sure, it may be a joke now, but whenever people talk about gutting threat control to make tank stance more important, I remember those times.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ekimmak

Does anyone remember when Red Mage would do everything they could to rip hate at the start of a fight, and then blame whatever tank lost aggro if they *didn't* go all in for that initial threat? Yeah, Savage PUGs weren't fun.

I feel like "The dev team doesn't play like the community does" is nothing new or surprising. So that they're trying to hardlock OT and MT roles isn't too surprising.

---

It wasn't a problem unless they forgot Diversion, even back when it was 50% only. If they pop Diversion, the only way they would cause a problem is if they somehow pull before the lob/tomahawk/unmend lands or tanks aren't doing their pull properly (WAR not using equilibrium for example, Gritless DRK/SwO PLD).

Since the change to Diversion where it halves the remaining half enmity reduced (from 50% to 80%) and WARs getting back Unchained and DRK's getting more oGCD enmity, it may only be a problem if your PLD doesn't know how to pull.

I remember it not being fun because when I went as RDM it wasn't fun to eat the first buster like Critical Hit in O3S lol.

What do you all think of the Mr. Happy discussion and idea on MT and OT?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aurelius2625

What do you all think of the Mr. Happy discussion and idea on MT and OT?

---

Mr. Happy isn't a tank main.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by whiskeybravo

Mr. Happy isn't a tank main.

---

Far as I can tell, nothing but melee mains anyways.

:P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aurelius2625

What do you all think of the Mr. Happy discussion and idea on MT and OT?

---

well it can happen but i agree with the answer of the question that SE aren't going to add a second LB for tanks, at least i highly doubt it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by whiskeybravo

Mr. Happy isn't a tank main.

---

Yeah need to get feedback from people like XenosysVex, Mtqcapture and ViolentDestruction. These content creators/streamers play as tanks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nolagamer

Yeah need to get feedback from people like XenosysVex, Mtqcapture and ViolentDestruction. These content creators/streamers play as tanks.

---

the last time vex give feedback with his interview WAR rework happen, i don't think we need more things like that again if a job was already fine in the first place, specially if only care about 1 job and not the rest of then.

Xenos plays all of the tanks. Bokchoy McNuggets mainly runs on PLD and WAR from what I've seen. Violent does DRK. But Mizzteq? I dunno. Does she actually play in her videos or not?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aurelius2625

Xenos plays all of the tanks. Bokchoy McNuggets mainly runs on PLD and WAR from what I've seen. Violent does DRK. But Mizzteq? I dunno. Does she actually play in her videos or not?

---

Mizzteq is a PLD main. She also heals when she does her "Let's learn <enter savage fight here>" streams.

I didn't read the whole thread, but most I've seen now are discussions on abilities, enmity and so on. So I'll just leave it at that.

When thinking about how 2/4 tanks will be better at being MT and the other two being better at OT, this comes to mind first:
Personally, from the 3 tanks we have now, I like Dark Knight the most. So when I play tank, I most likely go as DRK. My boyfriend prefers Warrior.
What I'm saying is that there are a lot of people that don't like all tank jobs equally, but prefer one of them.
The biggest problem is that you are actually forced into playing MT (or OT resp.) all the time. So if someone prefers to play PLD he will actually never MT, even if he would like both or even prefer to MT (not counting groups where people don't care because usually even casuals care after they read about meta and so on).
It's already like that now, so I was really kind of hoping that with the next expansion all tanks will be equal - or at least almost equal - at being MT or OT.
I don't mind either in normal content actually. But when learning something that's harder, I actually prefer being OT because as rarely as I tank, I'm not the best at boss positioning. For example: If DRK/WAR will be dedicated MT I either have to MT even if I don't like it, play PLD/Gunbreaker (what's the abbreviation? GNB?) or not play tank at all.
(Yes, I know there are tank swaps. A lot of fights only have them for short periods of time though and it's not even between the tanks. Or if there is no debuff the MT provokes back/gets covered etc.)

some ppl love BLM but hate cast bars, some ppl love NIN but love being a selfish DPS too so they have to dealt with his low personal damage betwen DDs, others love pick jobs with high support skills but they can't enjoy as result SAM, MNK, BLM, SMN, RDM.... its a pretty large ect saddly.

when you pick a job you pick his position in a party too, SAM you are going to be a selfish melee, AST you are going to be a high suppor healer, BRD prepare to dealt with some mechanics and buff you party as much as you can/need, tanks are not diferent despite being more neutral with this, and thats the charm of picking a certain job over others.

I'm really kind of curious how SE would go about doing this.

Because, all four tanks are going to HAVE to be capable of both at a basic level.

Every tank needs to be able to handle dungeons. Every tank needs to capable of off tanking in alliance raids. Every tank needs to be capable of both roles if you get two of one subset in a raid or trial in dutyfinder. The differences could only really be critical in high end EX trials/savage raids. You can't make the gap too wide or else you mess with casual content and you can't make it too narrow or else there's no point in the distinction.

You can't split up main/off tank into different duty finder roles without potentially screwing up queue times more.

So I'm VERY curious what SE plans. Will the MTs have a bit more agro/defenses and hte OTs a bit more utility/damage?

i belive they are going in to sinergy betwen each pair to make it more efective, all tanks have to be capable of pulling , keeping agro and mitigating properly, sinergy to make you want 1 of each pair can come in many ways and don't restric tanks on his basic capabilitys.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by shao32

i belive they are going in to sinergy betwen each pair to make it more efective, all tanks have to be capable of pulling , keeping agro and mitigating properly, sinergy to make you want 1 of each pair can come in many ways and don't restric tanks on his basic capabilitys.

---

Synergy doesnt have to be MT OT though. It can just be a pair of tanks that synergize but without restricting them to mt/OT. Like let's say gun also has slashing debuff. Well that doesnt stack with wars so you would be better off not pairing war and gun together to get something a drk or pld brings. That has nothing to do with who gets hit and who doesnt. (Its just an ez example. I actually hate damage type always up buffs, but it could be almost anything with the same effect.)

The better question is why keep trying to force restrictions
Restrictive sub roles. Restrictive pairs of tanks. All these player restrictions for what? Were getting 4 tanks. What's the point if adding more options only to lead a campaign to reduce player choice at the same time we gain choices.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Izsha

snip

---

That's depend of the definition of MT/OT, we ask ourselves what this mean for SE, they are Japanese and they mentality is different to the western company's so what for some it's a "OMG they are going to make 2 tanks dealt less dps and have more useless defense" for then it's not what they mean to do.

I assume it's not going to be much different from the actual relation we have between WAR and PLD bcs the Devs have a strong policy of have every job being viable and they work on combat desin around that since forever so I take all this drama as a over exaggeration.

So let's look at WAR/PLD and how interact in real combat, PLD have a strong OT kit and WAR a MT one, and still both actively tank in savage and extremes, PLD pull problems derivate from the Buffs on the other so I don't take this as a characteristic of PLD but more a problem generated from solve another problem, and still both are different and unique and ppl pick one of other for personal preference with is fine and no need to give WAR a cover version or to PLD a equilibrium or holmgang.

So to you final question, for me it's simple, make balance efforts more easy to address and implement, with more jobs more hard is fulfill this task, they need a way to make this viable and keep they standards at the same time with the manpower they have, it's like having a 15 kitty's and you want all of the more or less in line, it's impossible, but if you put it in boxes and each pair have his box it's more easy to determinate where to put them when they try to Scape.

We can't realistic expect they keep adding more and more jobs and keep it balanced with eachother and being unique at the same time without ways to keep them under control and have easy ways to see where they lack or why are so strong and address it properly without take several months or more that a year in the process.

I'd rather we just call it what it is: a concept that seems to offer a glimmer of hope for achieving a balanced state. Nothing wrong with "wanting to achieve a balanced state" in and of itself, but this concept in particular is simply not strong enough - on it's own - to convince everyone that it's the correct action that should be taken. I think we all agree some action needs to be taken, and after 31 pages of comments I think we can agree there still remains some doubt. Not everyone has jumped on board, for reasons which have mostly been explained by those individuals.

There is simply not a clear consensus that this is the appropriate direction to move in.

I dont think it is a good direction to move in because you will have the imbalance that is currently WAR which is currently the best Main tank and off tank.

I still think the best option is to balance around being both off tank and main tank but that is probably asking for too much.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Derio

I dont think it is a good direction to move in because you will have the imbalance that is currently WAR which is currently the best Main tank and off tank.

I still think the best option is to balance around being both off tank and main tank but that is probably asking for too much.

---

WAR is not the best OT, PLD is, WAR only do dps and use Sio and Sio can be used on the MT spot, PLD have cover, intervention and other stuff that are mostly effective in the OT spot.

Even DRK it's better OT that WAR with TBN.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Limonia

I didn't read the whole thread, but most I've seen now are discussions on abilities, enmity and so on. So I'll just leave it at that.

When thinking about how 2/4 tanks will be better at being MT and the other two being better at OT, this comes to mind first:
Personally, from the 3 tanks we have now, I like Dark Knight the most. So when I play tank, I most likely go as DRK. My boyfriend prefers Warrior.
What I'm saying is that there are a lot of people that don't like all tank jobs equally, but prefer one of them.
The biggest problem is that you are actually forced into playing MT (or OT resp.) all the time. So if someone prefers to play PLD he will actually never MT, even if he would like both or even prefer to MT (not counting groups where people don't care because usually even casuals care after they read about meta and so on).
It's already like that now, so I was really kind of hoping that with the next expansion all tanks will be equal - or at least almost equal - at being MT or OT.
I don't mind either in normal content actually. But when learning something that's harder, I actually prefer being OT because as rarely as I tank, I'm not the best at boss positioning. For example: If DRK/WAR will be dedicated MT I either have to MT even if I don't like it, play PLD/Gunbreaker (what's the abbreviation? GNB?) or not play tank at all.
(Yes, I know there are tank swaps. A lot of fights only have them for short periods of time though and it's not even between the tanks. Or if there is no debuff the MT provokes back/gets covered etc.)

---

But that's not actually going to be the case.

There will be plenty of situations where two OT or two MT get put in an instance. One of the OT can still do the MT job fine, just like one of the MT can still do the OT job fine. The concept they are going with where there are 2 tanks "suited" for OT and 2 for MT does not exclude them from being able to do the other role. Right now we have instances all the time of two PLDs in the same party, and one can still easily MT no problem.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kaedan

But that's not actually going to be the case.

There will be plenty of situations where two OT or two MT get put in an instance. One of the OT can still do the MT job fine, just like one of the MT can still do the OT job fine. The concept they are going with where there are 2 tanks "suited" for OT and 2 for MT does not exclude them from being able to do the other role. Right now we have instances all the time of two PLDs in the same party, and one can still easily MT no problem.

---

Yeah. I'm mostly curious in how SE plans to make this distinction in the toolkits of individual tank jobs, as all four tanks will need to be CAPABLE of both roles for duty finder content, yet enough of a difference for them to be considered meaningful subroles in high end content. I wonder what they'll do. Maybe give MTs more defenses and OTs more utility? Hard to say. Hope we get the info dump on job actions this month to give us an idea.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bright-Flower

Yeah. I'm mostly curious in how SE plans to make this distinction in the toolkits of individual tank jobs, as all four tanks will need to be CAPABLE of both roles for duty finder content.

---

Tank Stance
AoE threat move
Single target threat move

Done.

I think people are putting too much stock in how much they're going to change things and getting worried over nothing.

SE is big on every possible comp being able to clear basically everything with almost no restriction. This is one of the fundamental issues with healers for years now - WHM supposedly has the 'advantage' of big HPS but since all 3 healers can put out enough healing to clear everything that doesn't matter.

This logic must also apply to tanks. Right now the distinction between MT and OT is literally decided by who will lost the least dps pulling the boss. WAR has the best snap aggro and loses basically nothing so WAR is the puller, PLD loses a lot so they're the last resort. In any decent group even when tank swaps aren't forced the tanks will still alternate the actual tanking as to efficiently use both tanks CDs. PLD might be the designated OT but it has no issue picking up a boss in the event of a death or mitigating things so why would a new OT distinction change any of that? They're as OT as can be.

I'm sure that the dps outputs of all the tanks will be similar, anything else would just mean the MTs literally wouldn't see use. MT and OT aren't about who is putting out more dps anyways, look at most fights - the WAR does more damage and likely tanks the boss for longer.

I'd wager that the OT kits will lend themselves to supporting another tank and/or the group better. Cover/Intervention/TBN/Reprisal style abilities.

I don't think this is going to break tanks, if anything it might make tanking a bit more dynamic and less selfish when you're a non-PLD.

Perhaps the most simple solution would be to make skill change from "MT tool" to "OT tool" depending on wether or not you're in tank stance.
And to prevent issue with the whole "dps loss from tank stance", they could simply remove the damage penalty on the tank stance.

For instance,

PLD
Sheltron
ShO : Regular
SwO : Intervention

Cover :
ShO : Clemency-like ogcd (or
SwO : Regular

Rage of Halone (Now combo from Riot Blade, dmg scaled up to Royal Authority or slightly under (like 10-20 potency)
ShO : Also grant some form of defensive bonus
SwO: Become Royal Authority

Shield Swipe :
ShO : Duration increased, new utility added such to make it more dynamic
SwO: Becomes Clemency 30s cd , if target healed is below 50% health, increase the potency of your next Holy Spirit by 100% (basically, you're not loosing dps by using it). HP threshold to prevent abuse and becoming "part of the rotation"

Spirit Within :
ShO : Heal for the damage done, 100% of the healing received is added as damage.
SwO : Charge the target

Circle of Scorn : (new effect on top of current one)
ShO : Increase healing received by 20% while standing in the holy ground
SwO : Heal party members for low potency over 15s.


I'm not saying those are all great ideas, but you get the point.
They could all be both OT and MT (properly i mean) just by changing how some skills behave.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kabooa

Tank Stance
AoE threat move
Single target threat move

Done.

---

How is this a change?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bright-Flower

How is this a change?

---

You said capable of clearing duty finder content.

That's literally all they need.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kabooa

You said capable of clearing duty finder content.

That's literally all they need.

---

Or just a good healer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Veis_Alveare

Or just a good healer.

---

Well unless Gunbreaker has a trait called "A Good Healer" I think it's safe to assume that won't always be available.