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

[whiskeybravo]

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.

That's been one of my arguments since the beginning. They can't allow them to be so different that an "OT" can't tank normal duties. They can't say "We'll limit the possibility of OT/OT comps by designing them such that they can't efficiently MT". Then you're forcing tanks to level up and learn to play 2 jobs, so they have an option in either situation, instead of having 1 main job that can participate in all content. So, if they can't really design them that differently - the community is absolutely going to try to make OT/OT work, or make it the preferred meta comp, start excluding jobs, etc. etc. We end up in the same boat we're in now we've just shifted the jobs around a bit.

[Reynhart]

They can't say "We'll limit the possibility of OT/OT comps by designing them such that they can't efficiently MT". Then you're forcing tanks to level up and learn to play 2 jobs, so they have an option in either situation, instead of having 1 main job that can participate in all content.

Yes, they can, for the same reason that they can say "BLM is a very bad physical DPS". OT and MT would become different spec of tanks. Of course, "can't efficiently MT" would only matter in 8-man content, or even Savage content, which is the only content where balance really matters.

Even in content with tank swaps, you could easily have the OT tank only for the duration of the usual debuff that required the swap in the first place. Or, if they expand OT's toolkit, even have skills that negates the need to swap.

[whiskeybravo]

Yes, they can, for the same reason that they can say "BLM is a very bad physical DPS". OT and MT would become different spec of tanks. Of course, "can't efficiently MT" would only matter in 8-man content, or even Savage content, which is the only content where balance really matters.

Even in content with tank swaps, you could easily have the OT tank only for the duration of the usual debuff that required the swap in the first place. Or, if they expand OT's toolkit, even have skills that negates the need to swap.

That's.. An odd analogy. BLM isn't a physical DPS. Nor is it trying to be. To say it would be a "bad physical DPS" is nonsensical because it's not a physical DPS job to begin with. Additionally, you could take a BLM instead of physical DPS for the simple cost of forgoing what a physical DPS can bring to the party.

Regardless, even in your situation, the OT will never be able to do anything other than OT. Even if you are a PLD now and always get relegated to OT, at least you can pick up any content and be a MT instead. You aren't limited by the system as to what role you have in any specific content.

What I'm saying is that now you are a defacto OT PLD, and are made incapable of taking MT position in any content (by design, because we have to mitigate OT/OT comps). If fully realized you would not be able to tank any 1 tank content. In content where there is 2 tanks you are obligated now by an arbitrary design choice to only ever be in the OT role. If you want to me a MT you'll have to level up and master a MT job separately. This of course is a bit of hyperbole, as I'm taking the idea to it's fullest logical conclusion to make a case against it.. or at least, attempting to lol

If they don't make them different enough, then I believe we could very well end up in a situation where OT/OT is the dominant comp. But if they go too far and make them incapable of performing the other's role if needed, then we also end up in a bad situation where you're required to have as many different jobs as needed for any given piece content.

In the end I don't think SE is really going to go through with this, so it's likely not a big deal either way.

[Phoenicia]

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.

Easy to win when you're not taking the hits in the first place I guess?

[Aurelius2625]

People like Reynhart are evidence that I am not crazy in my fear for tanking in ShB.

[Reynhart]

That's.. An odd analogy. BLM isn't a physical DPS. Nor is it trying to be. To say it would be a "bad physical DPS" is nonsensical because it's not a physical DPS job to begin with. Additionally, you could take a BLM instead of physical DPS for the simple cost of forgoing what a physical DPS can bring to the party.

Obviously, you're perfectly fine with DPS being split into three types. Why is splitting tanks into two so inconceivable ?

Regardless, even in your situation, the OT will never be able to do anything other than OT.

No, because viable is not the same as optimal. Maybe an OT won't have enough personal mitigation to tank the whole fight and would require more tank swaps, or they would require more tank stance uptime, in a tank stance that could even be more detrimental to them that the stance of expected "MT", or simply requiring more healing giving healers less room to DPS.

I always use the same example. In a world where fight design would require more tank stance uptime, having DRK's tank stance reflect/leech damage would make it a MT that don't lose DPS by being in tank stance, as opposed to PLD would could still have the ShO penalty. PLD could still be able to Main Tank, but would simply be less efficient than DRK. Or, the opposite, having Darkside be a toggle that would spend DRK's HP to power its WS instead of MP (Like the iconic DRK), making it more desirable as an OT, because it would have to drop Darkside in the MT position to be able to survive.

If you want to me a MT you'll have to level up and master a MT job separately.

Yes, exactly like you would have to level up a different DPS if you want to switch from melee to ranged or physical to magical.

If they don't make them different enough, then I believe we could very well end up in a situation where OT/OT is the dominant comp.

You just have to change stances so that they heavily favor a given spec for each job. I've given example for an OT DRK and an MT DRK just above, and you could find 6 other stances to imagine what each job would do in each spec.

[whiskeybravo]

Obviously, you're perfectly fine with DPS being split into three types. Why is splitting tanks into two so inconceivable ?

Because the job of a DPS is to deal damage, and their separated roles don't take away from their core responsibility of doing such.

No, because viable is not the same as optimal. Maybe an OT won't have enough personal mitigation to tank the whole fight and would require more tank swaps, or they would require more tank stance uptime, in a tank stance that could even be more detrimental to them that the stance of expected "MT", or simply requiring more healing giving healers less room to DPS.

I'm not disputing what is/isn't/will be/won't be optimal. I'm disputing the idea that separating OT/MT roles actually accomplishes anything different than what we have now, we'll just be confined by a more rigid system.

I always use the same example. In a world where fight design would require more tank stance uptime, having DRK's tank stance reflect/leech damage would make it a MT that don't lose DPS by being in tank stance, as opposed to PLD would could still have the ShO penalty. PLD could still be able to Main Tank, but would simply be less efficient than DRK. Or, the opposite, having Darkside be a toggle that would spend DRK's HP to power its WS instead of MP (Like the iconic DRK), making it more desirable as an OT, because it would have to drop Darkside in the MT position to be able to survive.

Again, it's not substantially different than what we have now. All you're doing is shifting around the current formula - tanks are picked (or not picked) precisely because of the abilities in their kit. Not because there is some arbitrary standard that WAR is MT and PLD is an OT. We arrived here because of their kits.

Yes, exactly like you would have to level up a different DPS if you want to switch from melee to ranged or physical to magical.

But if just want to DPS, then I can level and play any DPS without necessarily being hindered in my choices. If I just want to play tank, well wait do I want to MT or OT?

You just have to change stances so that they heavily favor a given spec for each job. I've given example for an OT DRK and an MT DRK just above, and you could find 6 other stances to imagine what each job would do in each spec.

I guess that's what happens when you lack imagination...

Again, we are back at square 1 where the kit decides whether a tank is a better at OT or MT. If they design DRK to be a MT but then give it a lackluster kit people aren't going to take it as a MT.

I believe the only reason OT/MT proposition has appeal is because if offers the glimmer of hope that most tank mains have been asking for regarding balance. We all agree there is a point that should be reached for and eventually arrived at, but it doesn't follow this is the best or only way to get to that point. If they can spend so much time designing a new system, why can't they spend as much time fixing the one they already have?

[Reynhart]

Again, it's not substantially different than what we have now. All you're doing is shifting around the current formula - tanks are picked (or not picked) precisely because of the abilities in their kit. Not because there is some arbitrary standard that WAR is MT and PLD is an OT. We arrived here because of their kits.

Of course, there won't be an "arbitrary standard as who is MT and who is OT", they would obviously have their kit oriented into being one or the other. But it would give more room to make their kit unique. For example, if you have dedicated OTs and MTs, you don't need their tank stance to simply be copy/paste of each other, because people would expect tank stance to give more benefits to MT than OT.

Again, we are back at square 1 where the kit decides whether a tank is a better at OT or MT. If they design DRK to be a MT but then give it a lackluster kit people aren't going to take it as a MT.

But this has nothing to do with the concept of having separate MT and OT. They just need to do their design well. And frankly, right now, PLD has the most oriented kit, and do extremely well as an OT, so they at least have some grasp of what makes a good OT.

I believe the only reason OT/MT proposition has appeal is because if offers the glimmer of hope that most tank mains have been asking for regarding balance.

To be fair, it's a pretty strong reason. It's probably not the only one, but I personally think it's a good opportunity to make tanks more unique, because they don't all have to be equally effective at everything.

If they can spend so much time designing a new system, why can't they spend as much time fixing the one they already have?

They're fixing the current system more and more since ARR, and it only ended up making tanks feel more similar the more they're balanced.

[shao32]

snip

The whole MT/OT is to make balance more viable and easy at the same time they offer more optimal choices of tank compositions instead of bring the 2 most optimals and have the middle ones that don't belong to any side taking dust, no break 2 tanks and make them unable to do certain dutys like having less defensive skills or something like that, the point its make tank balance more accesible and straightforward not change the whole tanking panorama to a WOW extreme.

[whiskeybravo]

I'm not trying to berate your opinion, I just find it incredibly flawed.

For example, if you have dedicated OTs and MTs, you don't need their tank stance to simply be copy/paste of each other, because people would expect tank stance to give more benefits to MT than OT.

They aren't exactly copy/paste now. In theory they provide the same effects, but in functioning reality they are different enough that we've picked jobs almost entirely due to how simply using it effects your GCD. There's a big difference between intended functionality and how it functions in reality.

But this has nothing to do with the concept of having separate MT and OT. They just need to do their design well. And frankly, right now, PLD has the most oriented kit, and do extremely well as an OT, so they at least have some grasp of what makes a good OT.

But if SE believes that PLD is a MT, how did they arrive with such an incredible OT kit? That they need to "do their design well" holds true whether we keep the status quo or shift to a new paradigm.

They're fixing the current system more and more since ARR, and it only ended up making tanks feel more similar the more they're balanced.

So you trust them to make a new system with new ideas better than the existing system they haven't been able to fix? I still dispute that they feel more similar. Sure, from a defensive perspective, they all have relatively the same buttons they can press at similar intervals - and that's actually a good thing because then we don't really have to worry about how a fight is designed per se, each tank will have it's respective cooldown to mitigate a particular mechanic. Where they are most different is in their offensive kit, and it is this half of the kit we spend the most time concerned about, the most time perfecting, the most time being aware of, etc etc. If we are going to ask where it would be more important for tanks to differ, I think we can agree that it's better for offensive differentiation rather than defensive simply because it's where we spend most of our time & effort in actuality. Mitigation can be interesting, but it doesn't necessarily need to be interesting so much as effective. Whereas offense on the other hand makes a much bigger impact in holding our interest, so it should be fun and unique to that job, giving it it's own playstyle. Offensive ability between tanks can be equally effective so long as each is interesting enough on it's own.

When I spoke of homogenization in earlier posts, it was in context to the above ideas. If the tanks are designed fairly equally from a defensive & offensive perspective then we can interchange them more easily and have more diverse group compositions as a result. Part of the earlier problem with DRK is that it simply wasn't on par with the other tanks defensively. Even people who aren't tank mains constantly mentioned how they felt more squishy, especially during leveling. A lot of damage was already done, but as soon as it got fixed defensively there was a noticeable rebound in DRK enthusiasm. Again balancing for offense, as long as we are equally effective then they are free to experiment with interesting and different playstyles.

The core elements of tanking are grabbing/holding threat, and mitigation. That's it. Everything else is the cherry on top. Fix the basic fundamental elements and build the jobs out offensively from there. Build out their party support from there. Build out their unique "gimmick" from there. Then build out interesting encounters from all of that.

All 3 (4) tanks should be equally capable of performing their role in any content or it's going to lead to job exclusion, the weakest link will always get left out. If we grant this premise then it's technically impossible for them to make OT/MT jobs any different than they perform now.