With the launch of Stormblood

[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...)

[ShadowYomi]

These type of posts make me feel 4.0 would be good time to level and play a tank.

[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.

[aleph_null]

Actually in a pld/war composition it's not too big of a difference between having either of them as MT. In a12s it's probably better to have the war take more tank busters than the pld (holmgang - thrill/venge - swap to pld - holmgang - thrill/venge). Drk is a lot more inclined to the MT type since it has two dps skills based on parry procs and mp regen skill based on taking damage.

Anyway I'm not against what you suggested, having all 3 tanks viable for either slot, I'm just saying that's a lot harder to balance, and a lot more things can (and probably will) go wrong. Since we don't get a new tank in 4.0 I guess that's the road SE is trying to follow, so let's just see how it goes.

[Ultimatecalibur]

Anyway I'm not against what you suggested, having all 3 tanks viable for either slot, I'm just saying that's a lot harder to balance, and a lot more things can (and probably will) go wrong. Since we don't get a new tank in 4.0 I guess that's the road SE is trying to follow, so let's just see how it goes.

Actually balancing 3 compositions now and adding a forth tank and balancing 3 new compositions later is easier than adding a forth tank now and then trying to balance 6 compositions.

[Belhi]

Actually balancing 3 compositions now and adding a forth tank and balancing 3 new compositions later is easier than adding a forth tank now and then trying to balance 6 compositions.

The only way your going to effectively balance all 3 tanks for both MT and OT positions is to effectively homogenise their strengths and weaknesses and effectively make the difference between them cosmetic. I don't think that is what most tanks actually want. A better bet would be to intentionally balance each role towards either MT or OT and make them noticeably worse at the other. The current meta isn't really diverse enough to allow for them to be equally good in each role and still have their own niche.

[Ultimatecalibur]

The only way your going to effectively balance all 3 tanks for both MT and OT positions is to effectively homogenise their strengths and weaknesses and effectively make the difference between them cosmetic. I don't think that is what most tanks actually want. A better bet would be to intentionally balance each role towards either MT or OT and make them noticeably worse at the other. The current meta isn't really diverse enough to allow for them to be equally good in each role and still have their own niche.

People who think balance requires homogenization really don't get what true balance nor true homogenization is. True homogenization is incredibly easy to balance (because all actions and all numbers are exactly the same), but balance does not require that all factors be the same only that the end results are close to equal. Homogeization would be all 3 tanks are reskinned Paladins, balance is all three tanks dealing the similar average damage and having similar levels of durability.

As long as Warriors manage "Origin" stacks, Dark Knights manage MP consumption and Paladins have their own individual playstyle, even if the end result is the same, they will not be homogenized. Are Black Mages and Summoners homogeneous even though they deal similar levels of damage? Do you expect Red Mage to be homogeneous with them? I suspect the answers to both questions are no.