With the launch of Stormblood

[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.

[mosaicex]

..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...[/i]

Except it is not? If you do any type of end game raids you will realized that the game tries to split the distribution of jobs into the following category

Main(Benefits from taking hits (Shield Swipe, Reprisal, etc.) Tank (PLD,DRK)
Side(Doesn't benefits from taking hits) Tank (WAR)
Main(Throughput) Healer (WHM,AST)
Side(Mitigation) Healer (SCH,AST)
2 Melee DPS (MNK,DRG,NIN)
1 Physical range DPS (BRD,MCH)
1 Caster (BLM, SMN)

Of course this doesn't mean you can't clear the content with every other arrangement, but it would be a complete ignorant statement to declare that the game didn't try to force certain jobs into certain role.

Forgot about T10 Physical and Magical resist adds? How much harder would an average group have it in A10S without Caster or Range LB during progression?

The Limit Break nerf when you take a duplicate of jobs into instance also enforce this theory.

Go ahead and queue for A12S RF and tell me how many time you get a duplicates of healers and tanks and report back.

...if you're actively raiding, then you'll also know that WARs generally tend to be the designated "MT" at the onset of fights because of unchained...

Yes, I do know well enough how broken Unchained and WAR in general is.

But riddle me this,

Can you make the same argument for PLD and DRK?

[Reynhart]

Main Tank (PLD,DRK)
Side Tank (WAR)

Neither the Duty Finder nor the Raid Finder actually enforces a WAR in the party. What it does is not pick the two same tanks.

[Lyth]

snip

Not really. MT and OT are designations which refer to which tank is actively tanking at a given point in time. There are plenty of situations in which the group benefits from having the WAR actively tank, depending on other factors such as unchained on pull, cooldown timings, any active debuffs, and so on. There is no clear line. You have to look at it on a case-by-case basis and play to each of your strengths. The devs give you the tools, but it's up to the player to make the maximum use out of them.

snip

The game does divide different jobs into different categories. However, whether the devs intend to create a subdivision within the tanking role remains to be seen. MT/OT designations are extremely fluid, and players are adhering less and less strictly to them. For that matter, if you're actively raiding, then you'll also know that WARs generally tend to be the designated "MT" at the onset of fights because of unchained. MT/OT designations were player-enforced from the outset. The bit about duplicate jobs in RF is irrelevant to this discussion.

[aleph_null]

Not really. MT and OT are designations which refer to which tank is actively tanking at a given point in time.

I don't mean MT as who's actively tanking at the moment, since there are forced tank swaps so it's kinda pointless to classify tanks as such. What I meant was classifying tanks as "MT type" or "OT type" based on their skillsets. Having those two types of tanks doesn't mean the "MT type" has to tank the boss from pull to the end of the fight, since as you've mentioned there are cases where the "OT type" tank can help the group just like doing unchained pull. Warriors being the better choice to pull the boss doesn't make it more of an "MT type" than pld/drk, in the end they just do a few combos before the pld/drk provokes the boss, since that'd benefit the group dps more by having access to shield swipe, reprisal and blood price.

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.

Being an "MT type" tank (at least based on what I meant above) doesn't necessarily mean you can't OT, vice versa. It just means you benefit more by MT-ing. Currently warrior is really good because it's the only tank having access to slashing debuff. Let's imagine if all tanks have slashing debuff (or none of them have), pld/drk combo wouldn't be as bad as it is now. But if you have a drk/war or pld/war combo you'd still want to have the war pull, then the other tank provoke after a few aggro combos, since war still benefits less by taking hits compared to the other two. Balancing tanks such that they can at least do decent job (not optimal) in either position is good enough imo.

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.

Come on let's be realistic here. Even if we have 3 tanks that are good at both MT and OT positions, we'll still have one mathematically superior combination even if by a really small margin (or at least one superior combination for any given fight), unless you make some of them virtually the same.

[Reynhart]

What I meant was classifying tanks as "MT type" or "OT type" based on their skillsets.

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.

[Brian_]

Short of making all three tanks identical, they are never going to be able to balance the tanks across 2 different sub-roles. It doesn't matter how small the gap in performance is, people will find it and they will make it matter.

The gap between PLD and DRK right now is not even that bad. The gap is between PLD / DRK and WAR as an OT.

So, do PLD and DRK need to be competitive OTs? With a new expansion looming? I don't think so. Then again, I am not married to a job like some people are. If I want to MT, I will play PLD or DRK. If I want to OT... I guess I have no choice but to play WAR. If they make PLD and DRK viable OTs, then yea, I'd have more options. Do you know how else I'd have more options? If they just added a new OT.

So yea, sometimes it's not a matter of choice. Sometimes you queue into DF or RF and get a PLD + DRK pairing. And? Are you trying to optimize raid DPS in DF / RF or something? Or blaming your inability to clear on PLD + DRK?

When I choose to play DRG, MNK, or NIN, I am choosing to play one role. Melee DPS. When I choose to play BRD, I am choosing to play one role. Ranged DPS. Are tanks really so special that we get to ask SE that all our jobs should fill two slightly varying roles equally optimally?

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.

How about no? You keep on saying this garbage but it's wrong.

PLD is a better MT than WAR. Especially during progression. As long as your new OT job is really competitive with WAR and similarly worse than PLD / DRK as MT, you'd have no issues.

[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).

[Reynhart]

When I choose to play DRG, MNK, or NIN, I am choosing to play one role. Melee DPS. When I choose to play BRD, I am choosing to play one role. Ranged DPS. Are tanks really so special that we get to ask SE that all our jobs should fill two slightly varying roles equally optimally?

By your absurd logic, WAR, as an "OT" should be as bad a "MT" than MNK is bad at being a "Ranged DPS"...

[CafPow]

Pld can really use some offensive boost though.

I think, the main strength of War is not only the dmg-output, but also because he doesn't have to give a f*** if the boss does magical or physical dmg because it's all the same to him.
Make sthe War very flexible. Imo