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

[Kalise]

Balancing MT vs OT is terrible design.

Especially when you think about what "OT's" do the majority of the time (Which is DPS and Shirk the MT). Essentially meaning that the epitome of OT is... Ninja who can DPS, toss their enmity onto the MT and can even quell classes like BRD/MCH initial burst enmity (Which they can't do because Refresh/Tactician only cuts enmity rather than reducing their generation)

Also, nothing stopped them balancing the current tanks as "MT" and "OT" with DRK being either a second MT or second OT outside the fact that they just didn't really decide what to do with DRK.

To say nothing about how hard it will be for them to balance the 2 jobs in the role, let alone the 2 roles.

Since I guarantee you that the meta will never be 1 "MT" and 1 "OT" job and will end up being either MT + MT or OT + OT due to how the role works and how much of their Tank design goes out of the window because of the way damage is dealt by bosses (I.e. Basically just Tankbusters and Raidbusters that are noteworthy. Which leads to this "MT" situation where people just don't tank swap because why bother when you can just cycle things like Cover and Intervention to never have to)

To say nothing about how this will screw over people who like a particular job, only to get shoehorned into a particular role late game because instead of getting some reasonable balance *Cough*PLD's Snap Enmity*Cough* it's decided that they're going to be inferior to a "MT" and just be a support character instead.

If they just balanced Tanks properly, so that all tanks could MT effectively and all tanks had some form of "OT" utility that would allow them to be an asset to the party in situations where there's just 1 boss that needs to only attack 1 target at that period of time. That would be perfect. Since then all tanks can be used in all roles.

This means, not having inequality between defensive skills (Such as Holm being a shorter CD). Not having a single job having a monopoly on additional CD's that can affect a MT (Such as Cover and Intervention that allows a MT to effectively have 2-3 additional CD's). As well as not having a disparity between overall DPS output (Otherwise you'd end up just stacking the 2 highest DPS Tanks because DPS > All)

Tanks should have a strict baseline shared throughout the role. This is the one time where some level of homogenization is useful. Mitigation skills for Tankbusters should be equal across the board, irregardless of which 2 of the 4 Tanks you have in your party. Just like how healing requirements should be met irregardless of which 2 healers you run. So, not having PLD bring 2--3 extra CD's while OTing, not having WAR with 25%-60% more "Invulnerability" skill usages (Though, I'd argue that having these types of skills usable against Tankbusters is always going to end up with poor balance unless they're all carbon copies like Role Actions...).

These actions can have unique flavour for each class, but the core should be that when dealing with TB's, each tank set up should be on equal footing. If not, then it lends itself to compositions that have the more tools to negate TB's (Such as a reason why WAR + PLD is so popular)

The rest of Tanks kits can be flexible though. Make their DPS rotations completely unique, make their utility skills unique. Maybe even give them unique "OT" skills (Though, you'd need to be careful to not create any DPS increases such as how Shields build more LB). Give them "Active Mitigation" that's unique so that they function differently in between TB's (If this damage ever becomes relevant)

But the important thing, is to make the core function of Tanks equal. Otherwise you will never achieve a balance, even with "MT" vs "OT" designs (Because if OT's are still capable of doing stuff like 4 man content, that means they have some personal CD's... If they're then also "OT" designed because they can use CD's onto a MT... Then OT + OT parties will have more CD's available to deal with TB's as both tanks can swap and use these extra CD's on the active tank)

[Cabalabob]

I don’t think any of your concerns play into it at all, having less enmity doesn’t mean you can’t take and hold hate and having a focus on utility and support doesn’t mean you can’t mitigate. I think what they’re going for is taking DRK out of the current equation and balancing tanks the way WAR and PLD are balanced now.

WAR has MORE enmity but PLD can still take and hold hate. WAR has a lot of short CD mitigation but it has very few tools to actually use meaning the gaps need to be filled either by a swap and powerful CD like hallowed or by support mitigation like intervention or cover. But that doesn’t mean PLD doesn’t have mitigation of it’s own.

I think what they’re going for is setting up DRK and GUN(?) in the same way as WAR and PLD so you can either take WAR or DRK in the MT slot and either PLD or GUN in the OT slot.

But again, just because they’re BETTER, in those slots doesn’t mean they CAN’T do the other. I’ve seen PLD MTs in plenty of content. Hell PLD in sigmascape solo tanked phantom train because it just had more powerful mitigation than the other two. So it’s not like it’s going to go to such extremes where it’s not possible to take a PLD/GUN combo, it just won’t be optimal. It would be like taking a PLD/PLD combo now but without the LB fill penalty, which is entirely doable.

[Phoenicia]

I don’t think any of your concerns play into it at all, having less enmity doesn’t mean you can’t take and hold hate and having a focus on utility and support doesn’t mean you can’t mitigate. I think what they’re going for is taking DRK out of the current equation and balancing tanks the way WAR and PLD are balanced now.

WAR has MORE enmity but PLD can still take and hold hate. WAR has a lot of short CD mitigation but it has very few tools to actually use meaning the gaps need to be filled either by a swap and powerful CD like hallowed or by support mitigation like intervention or cover. But that doesn’t mean PLD doesn’t have mitigation of it’s own.

I think what they’re going for is setting up DRK and GUN(?) in the same way as WAR and PLD so you can either take WAR or DRK in the MT slot and either PLD or GUN in the OT slot.

But again, just because they’re BETTER, in those slots doesn’t mean they CAN’T do the other. I’ve seen PLD MTs in plenty of content. Hell PLD in sigmascape solo tanked phantom train because it just had more powerful mitigation than the other two. So it’s not like it’s going to go to such extremes where it’s not possible to take a PLD/GUN combo, it just won’t be optimal. It would be like taking a PLD/PLD combo now but without the LB fill penalty, which is entirely doable.

Do you even Optimize, bro?

It is NEVER about who has more enmity. On that note actually, PLD has "more" enmity since Shield Oath only penalizes you for 15% instead of 20%, RoH has the highest enmity multiplier along with Butcher's Block, and PLD doesn't require additional resources (CD like unchained or MP for Dark Arts) to keep its enmity pumped, PLD can simply Fight or Flight its RoH combos. Circle of Scorn and Shield Swipe also have bonus enmity on them which practically makes them "free enmity". PLD is actually at an advantage since a WAR using IR wants to also benefit from free Guage and DRK just can't keep pumping DA into its Power Slashes without switching to another combo. But we never need to generate that much enmity. We only need to be "ahead" of everyone else and only pump up as needed.

Since we only care about initial enmity that puts us ahead, then worry about DPS and surviving afterwards, what really matters is "snap" enmity and the price paid for it in terms of resources and DPS. The simple truth here is: PLD. JUST. SUCKS. AT. IT.

Every time a PLD initiates a fight when a DRK or WAR is present, a squirrel somewhere dies of cancer, which is very cruel! It's that bad.

Shield Oath is bad.

Sword Oath on GCD is bad.

Rage of Halone combo is bad.

The fact you spend 4 GCDs on Halone AND Sword Oath switch is EXTREMELY BAD.

The price you pay of -15% damage and 3 bad GCDs + 0 damage GCD is too much. It means you're that many GCDs off the raid buffs. IF you use your CDs so that you don't misalign with the rest, you already shaft yourself with unbuffed Goring Blade and misaligned GCDs. If you pull on PLD, might as well sit in Shield Oath the rest of the fight, because you'll never make up for the DPS you lost, so it's better to just have healers heal less in general. And even then, they won't make up for the DPS you lost. Ok, I may be exaggerating a bit about sitting in Shield Oath. But my exaggeration might as well be warranted.

And saying "just because A is BETTER at X doesn't mean B can't do it" is just plain wrong since humans always prefer to take the efficient route. Since the real question will not be "can they do it?" and instead it will be "Why do it on B instead of A?". "Why use my SUV to move my furniture in 3 hauls if I can rent a pick up truck and do it in one?" kind of thought process.

And with randoms filling the party finder, people will take the "better class" since they cannot predict the other important variable: "random player's skill". People are willing to completely lock out a role out of their parties for efficiency's sake. Have you tried getting into groups as a BLM/SMN/DRK/SAM during Deltascape? Heck, there was a time where PF had casters being completely absent unless it was the party leader.

If they know PLD is better as OT, they will ALWAYS take it over any other option. Is that bad? Not for the party leader, nor for the PLD. But it is bad for many others:

1- PLDs that prefer to play Main tank. You will more likely get kicked or not be invited again if you want to MT on the "OT job".
2- WAR, DRK and/or GNB that prefer to play Off-tank and/or only learned to play in the OT role.
3- This is the worst one: Pick two of: WAR, DRK or GNB, that get locked out PF completely because half the jobs perform better at assigned roles.

This game should NOT focus on synergies too much. Why? Simply because where synergy exists, it will be favored, and since you can only pick half or less of the available options, the classes with synergy will almost always be taken over the ones without, and the rest will be simply locked out.

I could argue it is not a big deal since your character can be any job and you technically could gear the job you prefer by switching to a meta-favored job in the same role, but then when do I get to play the job I actually prefer to play?

Why do WAR mains get to have fun while I sit in the dark on my dark knight? Or is that a mean intended pun by SE in order to bully the edgy kids?

[Aurelius2625]

Literally everything I wanted to say on the topic. I am TIRED of being relegated to OT status as pld. Someone on the pld guide page CALLED IT when they said pld was cursed to be OT always.

WAR is preferred MT. THIS. SHOULD. NOT. BE.

All tanks should be equally favorable to mt and ot with.

Full. Stop.

I should NOT have to level another job in the same role just to be able to be mt.

Should be a dynamic process of swapping between tanks, adds in fights, THINGS FOR BOTH TANKS TO DO. Without huge penalty to any one tank.

Remember dada and ultros on pld? Without Nin?

M and F on pld without nin is cancer because poor snap aggro.

I legit play drk at times and ask myself why it cant be as good when I am on pld?

[347SPECTRE]

They really should have it so all tanks can generate good snap aggro. They definitely have it with WAR, with DRK being a close second. All that's left is giving PLD the tools to do so and making sure GNB has those kinds of tools out the gate.

[Kabooa]

I can't wait to see these forums after they try to do the 0 strength accessory thing again.

[TouchandFeel]

I can't wait to see these forums after they try to do the 0 strength accessory thing again.

My feelings on that happening can best be summed up as following ...

[Barraind]

Paladin is a favored offtank because they have the ability to cooldown for a main tank through cover and can provide an essentially on-demand small cooldown for the other tank through intervention.

A paladin offtanking vs either other tank can let you ignore some tank swap mechanics, and can greatly ease your overall cooldown needs.

When not actively tanking things on warrior, I hit stuff and have shake it off and reprisal.

When not actively tanking things as a paladin, I can eat a tankbuster (which will be, at minimum, 20%'d and blocked) provide 10% mitigation for every other tankbuster or heavy ae, provide 10% raid wide mitigation as a cooldown, provide 15% raid wide mitigation as a cooldown, and have reprisal.

Paladin has a silly toolkit for how much damage they can prevent in different situations while not tanking.

If that's what they're going with to define main tank and off tank, it's a fantastic thing for said off tanks. I'll take those tools over slightly better threat generation and slightly better damage every day of the week.

[Tint]

It amuses me that people think SE thinks that PLD is an offtank.

Of course they think WAR is the OT and both PLD and DRK are the MTs.

They have seen that WAR is extremely popular and came to the conclusion that it must be because he is the only OT they have designed. So since every party needs one MT and one OT, of course WAR is in every party.

And what's the best way to solve this balance issue? To design a second OT of course, so WAR gets some competition for the OT role!

>.>

[jameseoakes]

It amuses me that people think SE thinks that PLD is an offtank.

Of course they think WAR is the OT and both PLD and DRK are the MTs.

They have seen that WAR is extremely popular and came to the conclusion that it must be because he is the only OT they have designed. So since every party needs one MT and one OT, of course WAR is in every party.

And what's the best way to solve this balance issue? To design a second OT of course, so WAR gets some competition for the OT role!

>.>

But WAR is by far the best MT this expansion and PLD feels bad to MT with (no idea with DRK I rarely play it)