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

[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)

[Phoenicia]

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)

Well, DRK is the king of personal mitigation now (since 4.3 buffs) and can give WAR a run for its money in DPS and snap enmity.

The point of Tint and my posts is that SE considers PLD and DRK as "MT" and WAR as "OT". Community treats it the opposite since WAR performs excellent as MT. This is where the problem lies, if SE treats WAR as the only "OT" and adds GNB to be another "OT" then we'll have two extremely adaptable main tanks that outperform the "MT" thanks to their snap aggro and higher DPS output.

[jameseoakes]

Well, DRK is the king of personal mitigation now (since 4.3 buffs) and can give WAR a run for its money in DPS and snap enmity.

The point of Tint and my posts is that SE considers PLD and DRK as "MT" and WAR as "OT". Community treats it the opposite since WAR performs excellent as MT. This is where the problem lies, if SE treats WAR as the only "OT" and adds GNB to be another "OT" then we'll have two extremely adaptable main tanks that outperform the "MT" thanks to their snap aggro and higher DPS output.

Wait SE still think WAR is a OT?