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

[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?

[OcieKo]

Mobility and Snap Aggro are generally OT tools, this game just doesn't have a lot of OT fights. There's not a lot of threatening adds, or periodically spawning sub-bosses during boss fights, and most of the aggro on those are shared with the primary target. Combo that with very low incoming damage, those skills become very useful for zerg/bum rush tactics MT.

Though I can't deny a lot of PLDs support toolkit screams let it be OT. Add onto that this community has a real problem with "Can't be used on CD so its worthless" issue. Old Shake-It-Off would've been great to have in an encounter that could be cheesed by letting a tank eat a huge pile of cleanse-able debuffs, sure the other tanks could either do a method that spreads them out or heavy mitigate thru to let healers spam esuna, but 1 button full cleanse...

The MT/OT issue in this game has more to do with Encounter Design rather than Job Design. Fights just aren't made for OTs, they are there as back-up, the heir and the spare so to speak. If they take intentionally designing jobs with MT/OT in mind and use it as an opportunity to make encounters use that, I'm game. I miss OTing.

Would also help if in a 24m raid setting they finally break the party as a group dynamic, so they could allow easier healing across parties and splitting who attacks what by damage type/ideal range.

[shao32]

We still don't now what is the meaning of MT and OT for SE, it can be easily add unstackeable mandatory stuff to each couple and call it a day so no double OT or double MT meta at all and the rest will be the same.

[Khalithar]

I don't see how WAR/PLD has any more synergy than DRK/PLD as far as MT/OT are concerned. If anything, tank mitigation goes up in a DRK/PLD composition. The only 'advantage' WAR/PLD has over the other is LB optimization (a.k.a. LB cheese) through shielding.

I’ll give you the very short answer. Warrior having the highest damage and fantastic mitigation combined with Paladin’s support abilities that allow parties to more easily mitigate or bypass certain mechanics via Cover and Intervention make them the ideal tank combo in the current meta.

[Kalise]

We still don't now what is the meaning of MT and OT for SE, it can be easily add unstackeable mandatory stuff to each couple and call it a day so no double OT or double MT meta at all and the rest will be the same.

But if they just do something like that, then it'll just be down to the best pair of Tanks being the meta and the other 2 being unwanted.

Literally, if they just added "Unstackable mandatory stuff" to both the "MT" and "OT" pair to force a "MT + OT" duo always (Which, no doubt, people would find a way to cheese to not be the case) without addressing core balance issues which have already been the driving force behind the WAR + PLD meta, then what's to stop the meta in the future simply continuing to be WAR + PLD because they're "MT + OT" jobs so bring their "Mandatory" role stuff but also have their individual skills that make them superior to other choices for these roles (I.e. WAR having Holmgang which is better than LD and PLD having Cover and Intervention which is better than all the support skills that WAR and DRK have combined (Because they barely have any... DRK merely has TBN and WAR has SiO))

[Khalithar]

Snip

Your post reminded me of how my static did o4s when it was on content. For Neo's various tank hit moves, delta attack, double strike, aero 3, etc. The warrior tank and I regularly swapped at various intervals because of the way our cooldowns lined up and making life easier for each other. We'd each take one double attack with our ult and share the others with cooldowns, I'd take the aero 3 with sheltron, he'd do the delta attacks with holmgang. It's not a flawless example, but it encouraged tank swapping in a more organic way, i.e. swap and deal with mechanics based on what cooldowns are up and the timing based on your group comp. As opposed to something like the debuff in o9s that forces you to tank swap because the tank with the debuff will get deleted.

If they're going to actively encourage the OT to do something I'd rather it be done in that more organic way rather than every single fight having adds or a force swap debuff.

[Steelbreeze]

A very long time ago World of Warcraft designed around the idea of a main tank (Warrior) and off tank (Paladin) and they eventually learned that such a design is untenable. However, I do want to add that (in the current savage mode content of which I’ve cleared everything) you can clear with any tank combination.

But as things stand in the current meta, the warrior MT and Paladin OT just have way too much synergy with each other including the way their cooldowns line up with certain boss mechanics. I believe that is the situation that needs to be addressed first if they want to make the tanks more balanced.

That was a player invention not a designer intent. It mostly evolved from aoe components in fights which paladins excelled at and warriors were terrible at. I mt'd on my paladin from BC to MoP, and I certainly wasn't the only one. Many guilds had their tanks swap roles depending on gear levels, class, etc. Some encounters even enforced no MT/OT roles also (notably void reaver).

[shao32]

But if they just do something like that, then it'll just be down to the best pair of Tanks being the meta and the other 2 being unwanted.

Literally, if they just added "Unstackable mandatory stuff" to both the "MT" and "OT" pair to force a "MT + OT" duo always (Which, no doubt, people would find a way to cheese to not be the case) without addressing core balance issues which have already been the driving force behind the WAR + PLD meta, then what's to stop the meta in the future simply continuing to be WAR + PLD because they're "MT + OT" jobs so bring their "Mandatory" role stuff but also have their individual skills that make them superior to other choices for these roles (I.e. WAR having Holmgang which is better than LD and PLD having Cover and Intervention which is better than all the support skills that WAR and DRK have combined (Because they barely have any... DRK merely has TBN and WAR has SiO))

there is nothing that stop having 2 tanks being meta and the other 2 crying in a corner, this will happen much more often with the current tank status, its happening right now with DRK, you just will add GUN to the list of the posible 2 most unwanted tanks.

the diference of 4 multipurpose tanks with no limitation of any kind vs 2 couples of tanks that are forced to play "MT-OT" roles is for the first ones if 2 tanks are just worse you have to give buffs-nerfs with having all tanks in mind basing the balance with all of then at the same time vs ¿PLD and WAR are to strong? ok then i will just buff DRK only against PLD and GUN only against WAR making dev job much more easy and straightforward since they will balance tanks capabilitys with the fact you will always bring a MT and OT, they will not care what PLD or DRK do when they buff GUN since you will always bring 1 of then in combat.

idk you but for me its pretty clear, adding GUN and don't add something like this will make tank status be like HW and SB but worse bcs we are going to be more, a complety knigthmare even harder to balance, and this will just make 1 MT will sinergy pretty well with 2 tanks (OT) and you have to keep a balance against the other MT to make both equally relevant.

[Barraind]

Many guilds had their tanks swap roles depending on gear levels, class, etc.

Yeah, its hard to judge how Mt/OT paradigms can work if you use WoW as your only case. Every tank we had was expected to be proficient and properly geared in at least one non-tank spec on their class (and once a week for about a month, in one raid night I would end up playing all 3 paladin specs, resto shaman and warlock tank, because fights are balanced around different things).


Everquest has used a pretty standard mt/ot system for most of its life with its 3 tank classes (and on its progression servers the best tank for a surprising amount of content is Ranger, because its gear for the first 2 expansions was also plate, and it has the absolute best threat generation imaginable) and it worked pretty well.


14 doesnt, and cant, handle its systems the way other games did. Theres no "We only need 1 tank for this fight" or "we need to have a mt for the boss and 3 offtanks for adds". Every fight is designed around 2 tanks, 2 healers and 4 dps. Or with alliance raids, 1-3 tanks, 1-6 healers and 15-22 dps, but you're stuck taking 3/6/15.

Its both a strength in balancing and a glaring weakness.

The smaller your raid size (and 14s is the smallest), the more you HAVE to find some way to innovate with what little flexibility there possibly is.