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

[Reynhart]

I agree with the above posts. For me, again, the main issue is that with the tanks we have now, the players decided the position of MT/OT based on the kit..

Yes, but, as far as I know, it's not the players who decided what skills each tank have. If PLD is the preferred OT, it's because it received several skills that make it more efficient as an OT than other tanks. Same, WAR is preferred for initial aggro because it was designed to have a skill that removes its damage penatly so you can spend the first few seconds in tank stance without losing damage, etc...

For example, if DRK's tank stance was changed to a reflect/leech effect, having it not take hits would only reduce its damage output, making it a more preferable MT than OT.

As for FFXI, it the dev team stuck with their initial idea of wanting NIN to be a DPS, they could have easily tweaked Utsusemi to work like Blink, having only a random chance of absorbing a hit, and it would have killed "NIN tank" right away.

[Kalise]

Yes, but, as far as I know, it's not the players who decided what skills each tank have. If PLD is the preferred OT, it's because it received several skills that make it more efficient as an OT than other tanks. Same, WAR is preferred for initial aggro because it was designed to have a skill that removes its damage penatly so you can spend the first few seconds in tank stance without losing damage, etc...

For example, if DRK's tank stance was changed to a reflect/leech effect, having it not take hits would only reduce its damage output, making it a more preferable MT than OT.

Yeah, but also consider the fact that SE believes that people are using PLD as MT while DRK and WAR are OT's.

Which instantly puts into question what kind of bass ackwards changes they might incur when trying to tool these tanks to their "Sub-role"

Will you have PLD's being given the more reactionary DPS gains (Such as how they technically gain DPS via blocking and Shield Swiping) pushing them towards the "MT" role that SE believes they're in right now? Whilst still maintaining their complete monopoly over OT utility?

Will WAR just become essentially a DPS job with higher DPS output but less defence (But not really because only TB's matter and lulHolmgang)? Thus pushing them towards their "OT" role that SE believes they're in right now?

With the effect of these things being... Players will find a reason to disregard the "Intended" sub-role that SE design around and just exploit whatever 2 Tanks they make more powerful than the others because of dumb changes and poorly designed encounters and immunity skills.

[ValentineSnow]

Yeah, but also consider the fact that SE believes that people are using PLD as MT while DRK and WAR are OT's.

Which instantly puts into question what kind of bass ackwards changes they might incur when trying to tool these tanks to their "Sub-role"

People keep saying this, do you actually have any evidence that they think this? Like, in the Mr. happy interview where he discussed dedicated MT and OT he said:
"So hypothetically speaking, if we put Warrior as MT, then Paladin and Dark Knight would be fighting for off-tank".
Nowhere there does it suggest he thinks WAR is the go to OT, in fact quite the opposite. At best you could argue he thinks DRK is an OT, which, when compared to a WAR, it is.

Like, are people so arrogant that they think they know how these jobs are being used better than the people who MADE them? He's not blind or stupid and he's working with the battle team who know full well how these jobs play. So can we stop with this straw man argument that they don't know what would differentiate a MT and an OT based on this "fact"?

[Kalise]

People keep saying this, do you actually have any evidence that they think this? Like, in the Mr. happy interview where he discussed dedicated MT and OT he said:
"So hypothetically speaking, if we put Warrior as MT, then Paladin and Dark Knight would be fighting for off-tank".

Actually the quote is:

"So hypothetically speaking, if we rebalance things and put Warrior as MT, then the Paladin and Dark Knight would be fighting for off-tank."

If we rebalance things and put Warrior as MT, then PLD/DRK would be left to duke it out over OT position (Assuming they can't rebalance either PLD or DRK into "MT" to compete with this rebalanced WAR)

Meanwhile they've suggested several times to the JP community that they see PLD as MT and WAR/DRK as OT's.

he's working with the battle team who know full well how these jobs play.

Ahahahaha xD

Oh wait, you're serious?

No, they do not know how they work. They do not know how healers work. That's why the balance with Tanks and Healers are so messed up, because the glaringly obvious things go unnoticed. Like how PLD is THE undisputed OT because of it being the only Tank with actual OT utility. Or how WAR is THE premier MT because Holmgang is (And has been) so damn effective at mitigating Tankbusters (Which are the only relevant damage to Tanks in encounters)

That Lilies where upon their reveal, noted by all WHM players to be literally garbage because healing was (And still is) about never using GCD heals unless necessary (I.e. Regen/AoE's/Critlo fishing). That WHM is seen as the weakest healing because it's designed as a "Pure Healer" in a game where healing output is through the roof.

If the battle team knew how these role played, then fixes for them wouldn't take 2+ years. They would have just slapped a CD nerf on Holmgang during HW. They would have changed Lilies into something actually relevant. They wouldn't be staring down the idea of designing Tanks into sub-roles of "MT" and "OT" because they can't see the blindingly obvious issues that separate them from being equally valued.

[ValentineSnow]

Actually the quote is:

"So hypothetically speaking, if we rebalance things and put Warrior as MT, then the Paladin and Dark Knight would be fighting for off-tank."

If we rebalance things and put Warrior as MT, then PLD/DRK would be left to duke it out over OT position (Assuming they can't rebalance either PLD or DRK into "MT" to compete with this rebalanced WAR)

Rebalanced can be referring to rebalancing into dedicated MT and OT, not necessarily rebalancing an OT into a MT. If they thought of PLD as the go to MT they'd have said rebalance paladin as a MT.

Meanwhile they've suggested several times to the JP community that they see PLD as MT and WAR/DRK as OT's.

Again, show some evidence of this, otherwise it's just hearsay.

glaringly obvious things go unnoticed. Like how PLD is THE undisputed OT because of it being the only Tank with actual OT utility.

The OT utility that the battle team gave it... Do you really think they put mitigation onto cover and gave PLD intervention that it can buff at the expense of it's own personal mitigation thinking it would be sitting on the MT spot? It seems pretty intentionally designed to be an OT for a job they supposedly think of as the MT.

I'm not saying they balance things perfectly, or that all their decisions make sense with how the playerbase views the jobs. But they aren't so in the dark that they don't know how these jobs are being used.

[linay]

Actually the quote is:

"So hypothetically speaking, if we rebalance things and put Warrior as MT, then the Paladin and Dark Knight would be fighting for off-tank."

If we rebalance things and put Warrior as MT, then PLD/DRK would be left to duke it out over OT position (Assuming they can't rebalance either PLD or DRK into "MT" to compete with this rebalanced WAR)

You have to take it into context with the previous statement:

"People like to take Paladin as an off-tank thanks to abilities like Cover, so the Warrior and Dark Knight are fighting for the main-tank spot most commonly."

Taken together, he's basically just saying whichever way they go, if one job is made to be clearly the best at either position, then it would leave the other two fighting for the other position.

By the way, that statement seems to contradict what you said about SE believing that people are using PLD as MT.

[Aurelius2625]

This is the same battle team that thought WARs guage halving each stance swap was good... that DRK's soul survivor being useless in raids until a bandaid fix, was okay....

The same battle team that though pld's enmity move savage blade comboing into royal was.... good.

[Phoenicia]

This is the same battle team that thought WARs guage halving each stance swap was good... that DRK's soul survivor being useless in raids until a bandaid fix, was okay....

The same battle team that though pld's enmity move savage blade comboing into royal was.... good.

The same team that let NIN get released in 2.3 with the same DPS output as monk because the playerbase "used a rotation they didn't have in mind".

The same team that made 2.0 WAR.

And the same team that thought 3.0 PLD being a good "defensive tank".

I hope I helped you enough! Also we have a President Trump and a Donald Trump on my server. Pls send Halp!

[Aurelius2625]

Calling it right now, Ot Ot as meta comp. Either SE thinks that WAR is the premier ot, as Yoshi stated gnb was designed to give war competition as ot at fanfest, iirc.... and two high dps tanks win out. Or.... the off tanks offer raid utility like pld, and are both chosen over the others because players will find a way to make it work.

[Kabooa]

Yeah, but also consider the fact that SE believes that people are using PLD as MT while DRK and WAR are OT's..

Perhaps they base this metric on the amount of damage each job mitigates as a whole?

Because if that were the case, the Paladin flat wins out.