What new class and or battle mechanics do you wish 4.0 will bring?

[Duelle]

I like versatility, I like seeing multiple sides, and I like helping out in ways that don't so directly equate to "thoroughput" (requiring more creative or adjustive use). That's just player preference, but I see no harm is giving the options for all of those.

Options are a good thing. Until they overpower other choices or create imbalances.

That said, and you may hate this opinion of mine for good reasons, I feel like DPS in XIV are generally the least versatile role in this game, and tend, if say the needs of a particular fight were to scale with its composition, to have the least thoroughput of any role.

You're not addressing the elephant in the room, which is the fact that DPS don't have actual responsibilities here as they do in WoW. In WoW I can expect a DPS to do things like interrupt enemy spellcasting or help remove enemy buffs (mages with Spellsteal and hunters with Tranq Shot back when they had it come to mind). Here, if I'm not the one interrupting casts with Spirits Within or stunning the mob with Shield Bash, it generally never gets done. The fact most raid fights ignore that aspect of fight design has not helped.

I'd rather it be more often viable for DPS to be doing more along the lines of healing and tanking to improve raid DPS where possible, than to actively strip jobs of "cross-over" components or play.

Again, I'll go back to imbalances. Subtle contributions to raid damage are not all they're cracked up to be, and I say that as someone who saw the recent return of lolRet (which gives away about 10% of their total DPS via damage buffs to three party members, except their damage is then trash which then causes people to not want them in groups; ever wonder why I don't want to see SE do that to Red Mages?).

Mistaking labels for the end-all-be-all of the class it's attached to, and denying all else that the given job might best do, is to gut it and then polish the remains. The class can be designed to fit a role, but that doesn't mean it should be cut at the wrists and ankles any time it's actually more beneficial to the raid, whose output should be its only objective, should it step outside that. You say let tanks be tanks, healers be healers, dps be dps. I hear "give the tanks nerf swords, strip cleric stance, strip Mantra (healers' job), Shadewalker (tank's job), and DPS defensives (tanks' job) and self-heals (healers' job).

So by your logic Rogues should lose Tricks of the Trade, any paladin spec that's not holy should lose Flash of Light, hunters should lose Misdirection, druids should lose Barkskin, etc.

What I'm in favor of is the jobs being able to focus on their role without external and unintended bullshit getting in the way. This means that a tank joining a group is going to be there to take hits, focus on positioning the mob and hold aggro. A healer is there to restore HP, remove debuffs and apply whatever utility they have if needed. DPS is there to deal damage and make use of utility as applicable (stuns, interrupts, etc). Anything beyond that is window dressing when compared to why the roles are present.

Specially in the case of tanks, damage dealt can still help, but it needs a ceiling, it needs to be kept within the range of DPS expected from a tank (no freak occurrences like triple Fel Cleaves), and it needs to be treated as a non-factor in the big picture when it comes to putting together a raid. Things like "don't take <insert tank> because their damage is low" should NEVER come into consideration, because that's not what the tank is there for. On the other side, class and encounter design should aim to prevent that topic from coming up when putting a raid group together.

And to make things clear, I'm not opposed to classes having utility (hell, my suggested RDM build is testament of this). Utility adds flavor and can be nice to have depending on the situation. Utility, however, should never eclipse the main role of a class. And utility never makes up for for lower damage/HPS/TPS. Again, look no further than Ret if you don't believe me (many of which still want Greater Blessing of Might removed from the game and that "missing" 10% DPS rolled into their own abilities).

[Iromi]

Actual use of CC.

A true support class.

Same thing as usual lol I expect neither, though.

[MistyMew]

-would love blu in here, and bst (bst ONLY if they vastly improved pet ui, reaction speed, follow speed etc, pets atm are laggy, pokey and ui is not the best)

-overall faster attack speed ,combat feels far too slow, less abilities on cd as well

-would rather they not fool around with rotations too much, they are not really good at it.

-as for abilities, would love a personal lb bar for a very potent dd ability.
- far better heal for pet only as a smn

[Ralts]

Pet-oriented summoner using a staff and i'm forever happy with the game.

[Minas-tepes]

Revamp of the job system.

Delete all classes, everyone start the game as a freelancer, and can choose a job at lvl 30.

Tank :
Gladiator - Like warrior, a good offtank.
Mystic Knight
Blue mage

Heal :
Chemist : Use potion, elixir throught the battle (not the one crafted by the alchemist), has his own ressource.
Dancer : Melee healer.
Oracle : Use holy spells

DPS :
Red Mage - melee support like bard machinist
Samurai - (not a tank because DK's already one) Like a melee black mage
Berserk
Beastmaster - use whip, can tame a lot of monster in eorzea
Summoner - Revamp of the job, more focus on summoning, summon primals part (like dissidia's yuna)
Necromancer - Get the Bio's spell and rotation from the actual summoner, use undead instead of egi's.

Fun one :
Mime - You copy the job and the gear of one member of your team (canno't change once the battle start)
Onion Knight - You became an Onion Knight when all your job are maxed out - You can tag in duty finder for all roles, and choose the according job once inside.

Sorry for my english

[Shurrikhan]

Options are a good thing. Until they overpower other choices or create imbalances.

At which point you've again reduced options. They must be viable to be options.

You're not addressing the elephant in the room, which is the fact that DPS don't have actual responsibilities here as they do in WoW. In WoW I can expect a DPS to do things like interrupt enemy spellcasting or help remove enemy buffs (mages with Spellsteal and hunters with Tranq Shot back when they had it come to mind). Here, if I'm not the one interrupting casts with Spirits Within or stunning the mob with Shield Bash, it generally never gets done. The fact most raid fights ignore that aspect of fight design has not helped.

And if you haven't guessed by any of my other posts, I think it's a given that XIV should require more from our dps. DPS shouldn't be a role free of any larger responsibilities. Granted, it's not like there's not potential for it. As a DPS, I will often gather mobs, draw from the healers to the tank, may kite key powerful mobs such while keeping them in the AoE area and where they can easily collect enough tank enmity to be drawn back at the time of our choosing, and will save stuns for abilities that could require tank repositioning to such a point as will cost us melee more damage through lost positionals than I would lose from holding onto that stun (including de-sync) or would cost the tank or healer themselves more dps for having to take the extra damage when not an indicated/dodgeable AoE. As you say, though, the issue is that the need for such is so infrequent that such opportunities seem inexistent.

Again, I'll go back to imbalances. Subtle contributions to raid damage are not all they're cracked up to be, and I say that as someone who saw the recent return of lolRet (which gives away about 10% of their total DPS via damage buffs to three party members, except their damage is then trash which then causes people to not want them in groups; ever wonder why I don't want to see SE do that to Red Mages?).

I've played lolRet, and post-lolRet, and pre-lolRet. But that issue comes from a lot more that just that part of their arsenal is invested in raid contribution. You know, the difference between why some Legion Rets have been rerolling, yet Ninjas and Bards don't throw down their controllers when seeing that they couldn't do Monk dps. Otherwise, you'd need only attach that Blessing of Might damage to the Ret's Skada/Recount and most of them would be happy.

So by your logic Rogues should lose Tricks of the Trade, any paladin spec that's not holy should lose Flash of Light, hunters should lose Misdirection, druids should lose Barkskin, etc.

I'm saying that's where the end of that slope your suggesting ends up. And very similar trimming has already shat on a few classes' playstyles, including among those you've just listed.

What I'm in favor of is the jobs being able to focus on their role without external and unintended bullshit getting in the way.

This I get. I really get it. For instance, I can imagine just how many weeks it'd take for an addon to come out that dictates who the Ret should next give his Blessing to if those were to go oGCD. That'd be a ridiculous annoyance. But Word of Glory? Sheath of Light? Did either of those increased options or capabilities ever prevent the Ret from dpsing as he liked?

This means that a tank joining a group is going to be there to take hits, focus on positioning the mob and hold aggro. A healer is there to restore HP, remove debuffs and apply whatever utility they have if needed. DPS is there to deal damage and make use of utility as applicable (stuns, interrupts, etc). Anything beyond that is window dressing when compared to why the roles are present.

My point here isn't to forbid tanks from spending most of their time being as "tank-like" as possible. My point is that when you center a class specifically within a role, to the neglect of all else, (1) that class then faces situational inviability, lest the undermechanics that would compete for its spot are taken out back and shot (e.g. CC, to compete with tanks), and (2) you hugely risk the balance of throughput for the various of the game, and even go so far as to say it doesn't matter, "'Cus trinity. Amen." Why take a tank when you can outright avoid damage, and that tank is dedicated to meat shielding? Unless you're looking at the tank role as being viable insofar as it improves performance by the rest of the raid (in other words: the tank as raid DPS), you play a balance between either having your undermechanics and having your ("nepotized") 'roles'. I'm saying: treat that balance with care, and be careful what you ask for when you say, "I want bosses to hit for more % tank HP," etc.

Specially in the case of tanks, damage dealt can still help, but it needs a ceiling, it needs to be kept within the range of DPS expected from a tank (no freak occurrences like triple Fel Cleaves), and it needs to be treated as a non-factor in the big picture when it comes to putting together a raid. Things like "don't take <insert tank> because their damage is low" should NEVER come into consideration, because that's not what the tank is there for. On the other side, class and encounter design should aim to prevent that topic from coming up when putting a raid group together.

Why should anything be a non-factor? If a dps can tank an add and group it for faster dps at the cost of a healer GCD or that dps's self-heal oGCD, should that also be irrelevant? Should that exchange just be impossible? Should it be irrelevant for DPS to dodge (cus frankly, healer outputs in this game are high enough that should a ballast cost a dps a damaging GCD or a mere healer GCD, and that healer has shit dps capabilities anyways, why wouldn't you stand in an AoE that has no lingering enfeeblement to your dps -- see how role fixation still has the same dps-fixation you hate, and now manifests in "shit play" because that becomes optimal with no counterpart)?

Admittedly, if both the tank and the healer are staying 90% in DPS stance in a current / progression encounter, that's undertuned. It messes with aesthetics and expectations. I'll give you that. I don't think tanks should have the expectation of doing nothing but gathering enmity and popping mitigation — they are player, with tank skills, alongside whatever other 'role(s)' of skills — but, I think it's fair to say that you'd want to feel mostly like your job's take on a given role (which should be potentially varied, not just more (Dark-/Earth-/Wild-) Rampart equivalents), rather than just a dps-machine. And, granted, in that kind of content, composition is a given (see forced tank swaps and class irrelevance). But if you as a matter of course take damage-dealers out of that tank-healer equation, you're going to offset compositional viability and role throughput in ways that may be unintended for all content, which invites arbitration, or else shifts optimal playstyle to optimal role composition entirely (unless again you take out any undermechanics that can could compete with those slots, guaranteeing their use, as generally idle as they may be). Increasing healer/tank needs without looking at the larger picture can lead to as many other meta changes as "bad" as you feel our current one is.

I'll agree that it can be lackluster at time in terms of feeling our particular role. But know that every role plays a part, and that the relative value of every role is dependent on the other two, and that unless you consider all three roles as skill-set augmentations on a common base, you are inevitably pushing jobs towards homogeneity. When you take out healer dps, you take out the counterpart to optional shielding, which is counterpart to any tank that isn't meant to have equal mitigation to the "turtle" tank, thereby leveling out the capabilities, niche, and to large degree the feel, of every tank.

tl;dr - Number tuning to make roles feel more enjoyable, better scaled, more reactive, more integral, or identifiable, etc., sure. Carefully. But don't aim just to make a role a role for role's sake, or you lose equivalency, and thereby compositional choice, and badly limit job identity.

And to make things clear, I'm not opposed to classes having utility (hell, my suggested RDM build is testament of this). Utility adds flavor and can be nice to have depending on the situation. Utility, however, should never eclipse the main role of a class. And utility never makes up for for lower damage/HPS/TPS. Again, look no further than Ret if you don't believe me (many of which still want Greater Blessing of Might removed from the game and that "missing" 10% DPS rolled into their own abilities).

And this is where I feel obliged again to say: Utility is dps. If it's a slow, it's still dps. If it's a heavy it's still dps. If it's a damage buff, is it still dps. Everything is dps. The only difference is that utility requires a shift in play to make the most out of it (hit its theoretical contribution). It has variable contribution, but in a different manner than the contribution-potential variance given by composition. When you slap T&S everything as a matter of course, or even burn everything down asap to avoid mechanics as a matter of course, you do not get to experience shifts in play that those undermechanics would otherwise provide. Narrow 'role'-fixation kills utility. Dead utility causes fixation on direct-contribution ("DPS" - in the breed of triple Fel Cleaves).

[Duelle]

I've played lolRet, and post-lolRet, and pre-lolRet. But that issue comes from a lot more than just that part of their arsenal is invested in raid contribution. You know, the difference between why some Legion Rets have been rerolling, yet Ninjas and Bards don't throw down their controllers when seeing that they couldn't do Monk dps. Otherwise, you'd need only attach that Blessing of Might damage to the Ret's Skada/Recount and most of them would be happy.

This is where I bring up the feel of the class. It doesn't feel good to know your damage is intentionally tuned to be lower just so that you can increase the damage of 3 people for one hour. Specially in the context of a holy knight with a big hammer that prior to Legion could smash faces with the best of them while also having utility.

Bards have the benefit of concept and connotation, because while I would be okay with a BRD dealing higher damage (definitely closer to the other ranged DPS), others are bent on seeing the job deal super low/no damage and spam songs.

This I get. I really get it. For instance, I can imagine just how many weeks it'd take for an addon to come out that dictates who the Ret should next give his Blessing to if those were to go oGCD. That'd be a ridiculous annoyance. But Word of Glory? Sheath of Light? Did either of those increased options or capabilities ever prevent the Ret from dpsing as he liked?

See, stuff like Word of Glory is something I can actually get behind. For one because it didn't intervene with the main role. For two because it was a nice thing to have but no group or raid would expect you to use it (see: the ridiculous complaints some here have about Clemency simply because PLD can't use it all day, every day). For three because it was a tactical choice that has an opportunity cost (since it cost a resource required for other attacks). If utility was designed and treated like Word of Glory, we probably would not have half of the issues currently facing class design ("X class has too much utility, Y class doesn't have enough utility, Z class matters more because of utility, R class has the wrong kind of utility").

My point is that when you center a class specifically within a role, to the neglect of all else, (1) that class then faces situational unviability

Only if overall class design is centered on niches. That's something I'm also against because, as made evident with HW's first tier, it causes more trouble than it's worth.

(2) you hugely risk the balance of throughput for the various of the game, and even go so far as to say it doesn't matter, "'Cus trinity. Amen." Why take a tank when you can outright avoid damage, and that tank is dedicated to meat shielding?

You'd have to be either incredibly desperate or not all there to implement a fight with entirely avoidable damage. Sure, there's stuff like the new Karazhan chess event that can effectively be soloed as long as you avoid the marks on the ground, except the event is VERY late in the dungeon and you still need a tank for the other 8 bosses.

Why should anything be a non-factor? If a dps can tank an add and group it for faster dps at the cost of a healer GCD or that dps's self-heal oGCD, should that also be irrelevant?

You're not taking the context of what I said into account. What I'm saying is that tank DPS shouldn't be a deciding factor on whether you bring that tank or not. In the greater scheme of things, tank damage is irrelevant because what matters is whether the tank can mitigate the boss' damage and whether the player behind that character knows what they're doing.

I'm sure you'll mention that the focus would then be on utility, and you'd be right up until I point out that said utility would likely have to be on long cooldowns so that it follows the rule of being something nice to have without becoming a crutch of any kind. That's another front where things fell apart design-wise (see the complains about how Divine Veil wouldn't be used every time the raid was taking damage, which is as silly as complaining that WHM doesn't have Benediction ready for every time the tank takes heavy damage).

Should it be irrelevant for DPS to dodge (cus frankly, healer outputs in this game are high enough that should a ballast cost a dps a damaging GCD or a mere healer GCD, and that healer has shit dps capabilities anyways, why wouldn't you stand in an AoE that has no lingering enfeeblement to your dps -- see how role fixation still has the same dps-fixation you hate, and now manifests in "shit play" because that becomes optimal with no counterpart)?

This is such a stretch in logic that it borders on ridiculous. Wanting to make the roles focus on the main reason why they're brought to fights does not mean removing hazards from fights nor punishments to the raid for not following mechanics.

Admittedly, if both the tank and the healer are staying 90% in DPS stance in a current / progression encounter, that's undertuned. It messes with aesthetics and expectations. I'll give you that. I don't think tanks should have the expectation of doing nothing but gathering enmity and popping mitigation — they are player, with tank skills, alongside whatever other 'role(s)' of skills — but, I think it's fair to say that you'd want to feel mostly like your job's take on a given role (which should be potentially varied, not just more (Dark-/Earth-/Wild-) Rampart equivalents), rather than just a dps-machine.

A tank generally has to react to the environment and be on the lookout for things as a result. While people talk about how easy it is and how they can do it in their sleep, Sophia is a pretty good example of what I mean. You hold aggro, use cooldowns and abilities when needed (like Tempered Will to cheese her Aero), pay attention to the floor for bad stuff and run to the appropriate side before the platform swings.

And you're right in that mitigation styles should be varied. I wouldn't call for WAR, PLD and DRK to have copies of Rampart. I'd expect PLD to have Rampart, WAR to have a way to match that level of mitigation without having a Rampart clone, and the same goes for DRK along with any future tanks.

But if you as a matter of course take damage-dealers out of that tank-healer equation, you're going to offset compositional viability and role throughput in ways that may be unintended for all content, which invites arbitration, or else shifts optimal playstyle to optimal role composition entirely (unless again you take out any undermechanics that can could compete with those slots, guaranteeing their use, as generally idle as they may be).

There's a reason why I'd want to tune stuff only in dungeons and raids. Tanks and healers do need to deal decent damage to handle overworld content (FATEs, leves, quests), and they have DPS stances for that. The dynamic I'm aiming for is that tanks and healers can keep their DPS stances to go pew pew when not in groups, but in groups tanks should be in their tank stances (unless the tank is designed to swap stances to actually function; see the WAR part of this post) and healers should be hard-pressed to go into cleric stance unless the group they're in notably outgears the content.

I'll agree that it can be lackluster at time in terms of feeling our particular role. But know that every role plays a part, and that the relative value of every role is dependent on the other two, and that unless you consider all three roles as skill-set augmentations on a common base, you are inevitably pushing jobs towards homogeneity. When you take out healer dps, you take out the counterpart to optional shielding, which is counterpart to any tank that isn't meant to have equal mitigation to the "turtle" tank, thereby leveling out the capabilities, niche, and to large degree the feel, of every tank.

This assumes that there's no way to have a tank that can match the mitigation of a turtle tank without actually being a turtle tank.

Going back to WoW, my prot warrior can consume resources to provide damage mitigation for themselves. Prot paladins have Shield of the Righteous and their self heal (that heals you for 30% of your missing health). Death Knights mitigate damage via their superior parries, HP drains+damage absorb shields from Death Strike and generating Bone Shield stacks. Outside of tanks with seriously flawed mitigation designs (like the poor Brewmasters), the tanks offer similar levels of mitigation despite prot warriors being arguably the turtle tank. That's an approach I'd like to see more of here, so that when we get Beastmaster or Dancer or Mystic Knight added to the tank roster, they can offer matching mitigation without having abilities copied from PLD, WAR or DRK.

[Bourne_Endeavor]

The day war gets a class that competes directly with it is the day PLD and DRK die as there will not be a single reason to not take 2 overpowered tanks over a PLD/DRK.

Not necessarily, seeing WAR is getting nerfed in 4.0. Regardless, I still only see two new jobs being added this go around. And both will be DPS.

[Shikiseki]

I really like the idea of a Paradigm Shift style mid battle: healers dead? shift to your available healer job!, heavy burn phase? Full attack brunt with full dps!

...although this could really only work in preformed party configurations. (probably super biased cause I like to play all the jobs equally)

The Action time thingy was really cool from A11 - I hope that was a prototype mechanic that may appear later on as well!

[Shurrikhan]

<snip>

Just put everything in the box.

This is where I bring up the feel of the class. It doesn't feel good to know your damage is intentionally tuned to be lower just so that you can increase the damage of 3 people for one hour. Specially in the context of a holy knight with a big hammer that prior to Legion could smash faces with the best of them while also having utility.

Except, you can always place all three on yourself instead, and your dps is only really be hampered proportionately to BoM. BoK and BoW are basically free raid bonuses. That's what I'd like to see from, say, RDM - especially if it had more hybrid a role than a current Retribution Paladin such that it's a decent choice of target for its raid buffs. For instance, imagine if NIN could Goad itself, or if RDM's Refresh was regularly used for an extended burn rotation before cycling through other playstyles, but would technically give back a fair bit more mana (or even %MP) on a Healer instead. Now you have a decision you can make. I mean, Legion Retribution is probably the easiest spec to level in the game unless you're in the habit of mass pulling consistently (in which case, take a tank, probably Prot Paladin for that matter). They're powerful; they just need more ways or reason for a Ret to see the direct gains or more often experience them firsthand in a group setting.

See, stuff like Word of Glory is something I can actually get behind. For one because it didn't intervene with the main role. For two because it was a nice thing to have but no group or raid would expect you to use it (see: the ridiculous complaints some here have about Clemency simply because PLD can't use it all day, every day). For three because it was a tactical choice that has an opportunity cost (since it cost a resource required for other attacks). If utility was designed and treated like Word of Glory, we probably would not have half of the issues currently facing class design ("X class has too much utility, Y class doesn't have enough utility, Z class matters more because of utility, R class has the wrong kind of utility").

This is why I end up a broken record on "shared resources". I also like stuff like WoG.

Only if overall class design is centered on niches. That's something I'm also against because, as made evident with HW's first tier, it causes more trouble than it's worth.

Though in general agreement, just to be thorough... Depending on where you draw the line, everything's kinda niche. If you mean niche in the sense of "anti-magic tank" or "best MT dps tank" then I'm in complete agreement. But "frontloaded" (roll-in / chain pull / prep-pull tanks) or "low passive, high burst miti" (hit and run tanks) can as easily be called niches, and if you go so far as banning / avoiding all that... there's not much distinction left by which to allow for job identity / gameplay.

You'd have to be either incredibly desperate or not all there to implement a fight with entirely avoidable damage. Sure, there's stuff like the new Karazhan chess event that can effectively be soloed as long as you avoid the marks on the ground, except the event is VERY late in the dungeon and you still need a tank for the other 8 bosses.

PotD? Open world? Possible eventually reworked FATEs? I mentioned raid combat separately.

You're not taking the context of what I said into account. What I'm saying is that tank DPS shouldn't be a deciding factor on whether you bring that tank or not. In the greater scheme of things, tank damage is irrelevant because what matters is whether the tank can mitigate the boss' damage and whether the player behind that character knows what they're doing.

And all I'm saying is that a tank is going to be worth X dps, most of it indirect anyways. But if you hamper the range of scaling procedures by which that tank can contribute (sticking him in perma-tank-stance as a matter of principle, rather than through fight difficulty or damage taken undermechanic reworks), you're more likely to hit the point where having a tank at all is non-optimal (in fights that give that choice). If you still want the tank at that point, despite having a setting that doesn't warrant one, then I fear that changes made just to guarantee that spot will likely worsen gameplay for the other roles.
In a raid or similar environment that already has guaranteed slots, the rest of the raid isn't going to lose out on options because of adjustments to effective tank dps, only the tanks themselves who liked stance-dancing even as MTs. I think killing MT stance-dancing 'just because' would be a loss, and an unnecessary one at that, but I don't think there's anything wrong with retuning to bring out more role gameplay, provided it's careful to avoid oversights or unintended outside changes.
Lastly, I honestly think that the whole tank dps fixation was a result of underpowered competing utilities and the strict dps requirements of Gordias; it's not something that would especially need to be feared in post-Gordias designs, though one could point out that SE could still go much further in making certain utilities' outputs less dependent on gimmicks or failures, and even that SE could have gone further in that direction rather than trying to solve everything with potency changes. /shrug

I'm sure you'll mention that the focus would then be on utility, and you'd be right up until I point out that said utility would likely have to be on long cooldowns so that it follows the rule of being something nice to have without becoming a crutch of any kind. That's another front where things fell apart design-wise (see the complains about how Divine Veil wouldn't be used every time the raid was taking damage, which is as silly as complaining that WHM doesn't have Benediction ready for every time the tank takes heavy damage).

And that's something I really hope will change in time, to have more than just 90+ second abilities to deliver "utility". (I suggested potency-based variable percentile debuffs on the first page, to that effect.) But first off, I don't know if whether by crutch you mean a regularly used or even scheduled part of a fight (DV before X AoE), or as an emergency tool (whose being saved for that time hampers theoretical output, but provides safety... during progression), and secondly I don't know why you wouldn't want to speed the transition between those two sides to any saving tool. Otherwise, you have something that's relevant only due to failings (emergency, rather than scheduled Benediction casts, etc.), and quickly loses its value.

Now, I want to hope that the PLDs requesting so frequent of DVs really just wanted to see more frequently accessible use of the ability, and not *necessarily* greater output over time -- so, a rework. But... I mean, Bene's cooldown was reduced due to similar complaints. It's nothing unique. People, especially single-mains, want their jobs to be stronger and might not consider the context for those changes. I wouldn't call utility as being slated for permanent disappointment just because some people won't be satisfied with what they get despite improvements -- many of those same PLDs were also requesting 380-potency RAs and so forth...

This is such a stretch in logic that it borders on ridiculous. Wanting to make the roles focus on the main reason why they're brought to fights does not mean removing hazards from fights nor punishments to the raid for not following mechanics.

I never said that hazards would be removed from a fight. I pointed out that if healers and tanks are given nothing else or better to do with their time, then hazards to damage-dealers are mitigated insofar as decisions made to keep pushing or retreat for mechanics, because it you've shifted the point at which it is optimal for DPS to cheese mechanics by alloting healer and tank capabilities more fully to their role. In other words, it could very well make what you'd normally consider "bad play" optimal. This is why I can't understand healers who complain about their dps standing in shit, which they admit to being weak anyways, when they also admit to never casting a single offensive spell (because it's "not their 'role'"); they invited that laziness, where dodging wouldn't cost a single GCD, and where it would, it is optimal at that point to just keep punching while standing in the red. One can't be entirely role-fixated and still complain about bad play, because there's no cross-over between roles at that point -- no common criteria.

And you're right in that mitigation styles should be varied. I wouldn't call for WAR, PLD and DRK to have copies of Rampart. I'd expect PLD to have Rampart, WAR to have a way to match that level of mitigation without having a Rampart clone, and the same goes for DRK along with any future tanks.

Then you may have to accept some degree of niching, and just pray that the player-base doesn't fixate overly on one aspect of a given tank and praise or condemn it accordingly when other, less direct means, could arrive at the same outputs. Because otherwise, it's pretty well just going to be more of the same; probably not as direct of clones as DRK was, but clones nonetheless.

There's a reason why I'd want to tune stuff only in dungeons and raids. Tanks and healers do need to deal decent damage to handle overworld content (FATEs, leves, quests), and they have DPS stances for that. The dynamic I'm aiming for is that tanks and healers can keep their DPS stances to go pew pew when not in groups, but in groups tanks should be in their tank stances (unless the tank is designed to swap stances to actually function; see the WAR part of this post) and healers should be hard-pressed to go into cleric stance unless the group they're in notably outgears the content.

Then just consider what you're willing to lose as well. Should dps still be able to take and hold mobs in A4S, for instance? If so, you're going to have be careful to affect only boss damage (which is going to pressure tanks directly a bit more than it's going to increase general healing requirements) or will need to include that added damage through certain undermechanics that still allow dps to function in whatever crossover capacities you'd still allow, albeit with added healing done over time.

This assumes that there's no way to have a tank that can match the mitigation of a turtle tank without actually being a turtle tank.

Going back to WoW, my prot warrior can consume resources to provide damage mitigation for themselves. Prot paladins have Shield of the Righteous and their self heal (that heals you for 30% of your missing health). Death Knights mitigate damage via their superior parries, HP drains+damage absorb shields from Death Strike and generating Bone Shield stacks. Outside of tanks with seriously flawed mitigation designs (like the poor Brewmasters), the tanks offer similar levels of mitigation despite prot warriors being arguably the turtle tank. That's an approach I'd like to see more of here, so that when we get Beastmaster or Dancer or Mystic Knight added to the tank roster, they can offer matching mitigation without having abilities copied from PLD, WAR or DRK.

I got the example, and I do have 110s of most tanks so I see where you're going with it. But one thing to keep in mind is that all WoW tanks have a relative spectrum of personal vs. reactive scaling. Take Prot Warrior, for example, from its active rage generation nerfs to their reversion to Ignore Pain's 33% mitigation nerf. In a fight like Ursoc, where Ignore Pain could regularly out-heal (at least on Recount, not sure about Skada) main healers if taking Rend into Overpower (so, the majority of tank damage), Shield Slam rage (personally-based resource generation) is nearly irrelevant because you're funnelled so much from damage taken (reactively based, or 'scaled' resource generation). On the other hand, being dependent on scaled resource generation means you have to take a sizeable amount of damage (beyond Shield Block; you'd need 30+ rage for a non-Vengeanced IP) to afford to start mitigating it. As such, Prot Warrs have bounced back and forth from being perceived as 'getting squishier' in dungeon content (where they'd been slower to mitigate than others) to raid content (where their massive IPs have finally been nerfed). The same spectrum occurs with pure-percentile mitigation Prot PLDs (apart from LotP / HotP) on one end and Vengeance Demon Hunter self-healing on the other. Certain tools will break expectations in this regard but generally the more personally-resourced the tank is, the better it is for running content it overgears, and worse for content for which its undergeared (generally by a smaller offset than the prior).

Something like: Prot PLD > Prot WAR > Brewmaster > Guardian > Blood > Vengeance

Compare that to what niches you don't mind, and which you do. Personally I see Prot Warrior as no more the turtle tank than most any other (can't compare vs. Brewmaster cus... no idea where it was supposed to go anyways - roll around for orbs while purposely playing at low HP... in a raid?); to me they're just a tank whose offensive boost (FR, like Maim) used to be obligatorily tied to its defensive boosts, has frequent obligatory APM, swift reliable AoE, high mobility, etc., and some pretty enjoyable window play. Aesthetically though... sure, especially if we were to ever actually hold our shield out in front during shield block. And I do love that it's not significantly any better or worse at that than the less "turtle-ish" tanks. But, by that same token, they're all equally turtle-tanks, in so far as actual output.

I'd also be cool with there being a tank that has less mitigation and more... whatever else, so long as there is division of duty enough to allow it in multi-tank raids, alt gearing is easy enough to make it a choice easily swapped to and from (as in XIV, among tanks, for the most part), and other tanks can still be relevant in outgeared content by way of allowing other roles to bring out more output.That's why I brought that up. I still see that variance... given enough time and enough tanks added, as viable, if fights should allow. Granted, you may need double-shielders or whatever in order to support that tank, or a damage-debuffing dps, whatever. But as long as it's still viable, then you can have output variety too.