With the launch of Stormblood

[Shurrikhan]

I was thinking that they'll probably try to balance tanks as "OT" type and "MT" type, in which case adding samurai as a second "OT" type to compete with war would make sense, so we'll see raid groups bringing pld/drk + war/sam, but it seems like they are trying to avoid having that subclassification among tanks. It'll be interesting to see how they'll balance the three tanks so that any combination of two tanks is viable for raid progression.

I do prefer that they avoid sub-classifications unless they plan on going whole-hog with the idea that no two jobs provide quite the same functionality or "niche", but that latter idea would require that gearing, and possibly even leveling, were revised heavily to allow for easier job swapping, and even then you'd want to try to keep a sense of bringing the player, not just the class. Moreover, classes would feel a bit... fettered at best, dismembered at worst, if there was still a clear niche victor for each fight, such that one job always ends where the next begins, regardless of the actual range of their toolkits.

Maybe its time for all tank mains, to just.. not queue up for anything without a full pre-made of friends or FC members. Let the DPS wait in their two hour queue's and show SE that they've made a mistake.

That said, as a DPS I'll probably be doing my best to try to avoid the need for a tank anytime I and my friends don't have one in actual need for experience to rotate through (e.g. MSQing on tank/heals, and one of four friends each taking a healer or tank through 61-70 then swapping out while the two previous dps do the same). If SE hadn't gone out of their way to destroy their own toolkits and mechanics (removing most forms of CC), DPS could actually forgo tanks entirely for a time. So rather than pointing fingers at "entitled" DPS for having gained two jobs this coming expansion, let's first note that it took dungeon redesigns just to ensure tanks would remain in the loop even mitigation needs weren't so great as to actually require your presence...

[aleph_null]

I do prefer that they avoid sub-classifications unless they plan on going whole-hog with the idea that no two jobs provide quite the same functionality or "niche"

What makes more sense is to tweaks existing tanks so that all three can be fully used in either position.

Personally I don't really mind having subclassification into different kinds of tanks, just like how there are different kinds of dps (melees with resistance down debuffs, ranged with magic/physical dps boost and mp/tp regen, casters with high personal dps and some defensive utilities). I know that ideally any tank can be good at OT and MT, and that any combination of two tanks is good for progression, but that'll be a lot harder to balance when we get more and more new jobs. Right now we have 3 tanks and 3 combinations of tanks, if we have 4 tanks we'd have 6 combinations, if we have 5 tanks we'd have 10 combinations, and so on. I think it's reasonable to have certain combinations being "bad", just like certain combinations of dps are just flat out terrible for progression (2 melees 2 casters for example, will struggle with long fight).

There is no OT "role". It's an arbitrary, player-created designation which depends entirely on how your group decides to split up the tanking responsibilities on a given fight.

"MT" and "OT" are just oversimplification of saying which tank benefits more from taking hits, due to skills that proc based on taking hits (block/parry/just taking damage) like shield swipe, reprisal and blood price. You want the tank that benefits more from taking hits to be, well, tanking the boss as much as they can, while their cds allow (with a few tank swaps to allow the other tank to use their cds as well).

Yes it's player created designation, but it's not arbitrary, it completely depends on the skillset of the jobs. It's not arbitrarily decided that war benefits less from taking damage compared to pld/drk. It's decided by their skillsets, which are at the hands of the devs.

[Reynhart]

Personally I don't really mind having subclassification into different kinds of tanks

Problem is, since every content can be accessed by a random party setup, you can't design content where one tank job can't MT. So, if all tanks can be good MT, all tanks should be good OT too.

Right now we have 3 tanks and 3 combinations of tanks, if we have 4 tanks we'd have 6 combinations, if we have 5 tanks we'd have 10 combinations, and so on.

Well, right now, we have 3 tanks, and 2 clearly superior combinations. Create another OT (Still viable as an MT), and you'll probably end with only 1 superior combination.

but that'll be a lot harder to balance when we get more and more new jobs

Frankly, I really don't look forward to a 4th tank...In fact, I wonder how many tanks other MMO managed to do without clear overlapping or serious balance issue.

[Shurrikhan]

Personally I don't really mind having subclassification into different kinds of tanks, just like how there are different kinds of dps (melees with resistance down debuffs, ranged with magic/physical dps boost and mp/tp regen, casters with high personal dps and some defensive utilities).

Except, only one (and perhaps a small part of two other's) DPS job's additional output is ever really conditionally nullified—Bard, in the event that there are no casters, nor need for Paeon/Ballad (whereas Monk and Summoner even without Int down or instant backup rezes still have near-full and full outputs, respectively). An "MT" or "OT", on the other hand, require a condition to even meet their niche criteria. Without presently tanking, an "MT"'s better adjusted mitigation, enmity generation, per-RNG-mitigation procs, and so forth, are all wasted. Similarly, a specialized "OT" can only really be considered a hybrid, merely costing less dps to carry parts of a tank's toolkit, but with a lesser capacity to make use of them. The difference for them, especially outside of resource regeneration-requiring fights, is far more pivotal than that of, say, a raid-buffing vs. self-centric dps, for which there is no forced waste or overlap (more alike, again, to the difference between a Bard, who's toolkit is niche, and any other DPS's).

[aleph_null]

Except, only one (and perhaps a small part of two other's) DPS job's additional output is ever really conditionally nullified—Bard, in the event that there are no casters, nor need for Paeon/Ballad (whereas Monk and Summoner even without Int down or instant backup rezes still have near-full and full outputs, respectively). An "MT" or "OT", on the other hand, require a condition to even meet their niche criteria. Without presently tanking, an "MT"'s better adjusted mitigation, enmity generation, per-RNG-mitigation procs, and so forth, are all wasted.

Just a note, brd's foe requiem is still worth it even in groups without casters, since that boosts the healers' dps (a reason why speedrun groups take drg/nin/mch/brd).

In terms of utilities being nullified, well in easier contents it doesn't really matter since in the first place you can get two of the same jobs in the party. In the harder contents you can make RF require one MT type and one OT type in the queue, just like how RF enforces at least one of each type of dps (melee, caster and physical ranged). For statics/premades we already see most groups having one war and one pld/drk, nothing really changes. I agree that it's less than ideal (compared to every tank being equally good at MT/OT position), but it's a lot easier to balance I'd imagine.

If we look at the state of healers right now, any combination works (whm/sch, whm/ast, sch/ast) since ast can switch between two stances (shield type and regen type), but imagine if they add another new healer. Is the new healer (and every subsequent healer) going to have two stances too, leaving whm and sch as the odd ones? Or are they going to give whm and sch two stances too? I honestly have no idea how they'll go forward from this point.

This is still a problem. The OT skillset needs to allow the tank to be a fully competent MT, but the other is not true. Just look at what PLD loses if it's not actively tanking.
If SAM was designed to be an OT tank, you can be sure that all premade parties would have sought SAM+WAR.

Eh not really, as MT war is kinda inferior compared to pld/drk, for magic busters we only have thrill (which isn't a big mitigation on its own) and vengeance. With high defiance uptime yes war has a really good mitigation, but there's a reason why people don't have wars tanking in defiance for a long time. The only fights where warrior is good in the MT slot is where the tank busters are spread in a way that you can holmgang every alternate tank buster (like a12s), so you can stack thrill + vengeance for the other ones. There aren't many fights where bringing double war is optimal.

[Reynhart]

Eh not really, as MT war is kinda inferior compared to pld/drk, for magic busters we only have thrill (which isn't a big mitigation on its own) and vengeance. With high defiance uptime yes war has a really good mitigation, but there's a reason why people don't have wars tanking in defiance for a long time.

Ok, let's count what PLD has for magic damage. Rampart...and Sentinel, the first one on a 90s CD and the second one on 180s. And of course, Hallowed Ground.
You don't need "high defiance uptime" to pop Inner Beast either alone (As poweful or Rampart) or on top of Vengeance (More powerful than Sentinel) and/or Thrill for each perfectly scripted tank buster. WAR is also able to refill a lot of HP instantly after a big hit. And if you really, really need the mitigation, you still have Storm's Path...WAR is a better "magical MT" than PLD. And for obsessive-DPS-people who will answer "But, using Inner Beast is a DPS loss compared to Fell Cleave"...well PLD is a DPS loss compared to any other tank.

In fact you can easily match Rampart with Storm's Path+Thrill+healing and Sentinel with Storm's Path+Vengeance, making even Inner Beast less required.

The only fights where warrior is good in the MT slot is where the tank busters are spread in a way that you can holmgang every alternate tank buster (like a12s), so you can stack thrill + vengeance for the other ones.

Warrior is a "good" MT in every fight. Not "the best", but still a better MT compared to PLD than PLD is an OT compared to WAR.

There aren't many fights where bringing double war is optimal.

There's pretty much none, but for very different reasons than their personal prowess. (Not stacking jobs, non-stacking debuffs, etc...)

[CafPow]

...

That's why i said... War doesn't really care what dmg inc type it is.

Magical dmg? Pld is weak
Physical dmg? Not the strength of Drk
While warrior _can_ use inner beast and /lol-macro

War mechanic is maximum flexibility + good dmg, makes him a win for every second tankslot

[aleph_null]

Warrior is a "good" MT in every fight. Not "the best", but still a better MT compared to PLD than PLD is an OT compared to WAR.

That's the main issue that I also want to see resolved. Even if we place pld/drk as the MT type tank they're still terrible together. To begin with I never liked the idea that war is the one and only tank that has slashing resist debuff, considering all the tanks have slashing type damage. Either give all of them slashing resist debuff or remove it from warrior. Storm's eye isn't the only reason why warrior is a good tank, but it's one of the biggest reasons why pld/drk combination is comparatively terrible.

(On a side note it seems like double war is possibly optimal at faust z lol)

[Reynhart]

Even if we place pld/drk as the MT type tank they're still terrible together.

That's why I think it would be a good idea to make them perform better as OT, so that PLD/DRK is not clearly inferior.
It would also result in more setup with WAR MT - PLD/DRK OT because some players likes to MT but don't really like PLD andr DRK.