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

[Kalise]

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

DPS being split into "Three types" isn't actually that true.

They're all just DPS.

When people make parties, they don't go around looking for 1 mDPS, 1 rDPS, 1 mage and 1 "Random" to make their parties.

They go with 4 different DPS. Often looking to optimize pDPS vs tDPS (So things like DRG/NIN/BRD have been standard for a while, with the 4th slot sometimes being MCH, sometimes being SAM, sometimes being SMN)

But really, any 4 DPS jobs will suffice for content. Certain mechanics will favour a particular DPS subrole, but it's still possible to clear with pretty much any set up.

MT vs OT as a division creates the notion that there HAS to be a MT and OT. Otherwise they wouldn't be designed in this manner, since it suggests that the "OT" designed tanks would be unsuitable for a MT role, or at least, notably less effective.

And if this division doesn't create this scenario where "OT" tanks can't MT... Then you've achieved nothing in this design except laid the foundations of imbalance between the 4 tanks and thus pushed people towards a specific meta pairing. Literally just doing the thing that people have been complaining about since HW.

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.

The difference here is that switching from melee to ranged to magical isn't changing role. You're still a DPS. You still fill DPS spots in parties. You can still party with literally every other DPS job and you'll be fine.

Switching DPS jobs is just switching your playstyle.

Switching between a "MT" and "OT" tank would be switching your role, in many iterations of balancing the 2 to be designed specifically for one sub-role or another.

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.

Except the part where no-one gives a damn about stances?

Where also, everyone will pretty much guaranteed find a way to cheese content without utilizing tank stances? Like they have been doing since forever?

Designing "MT" around being in a Tank stance is doomed to fail hard. Either OT's will rein supreme with their superior "DPS Stance" or "MT" will just run DPS stance 24/7 too and all your balancing will lead to another stale meta of everyone in DPS stances using DPS combo's but oh wait, Holmgang is rigged af and PLD has bunches of utility woo...

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.

You already don't have copy/paste tank stances.

Nor do you need them.

Especially given that no-one really uses them anyway.

Like, as far as current encounters go, "Tank Stances" have literally no baring on tank balance at all (Despite WAR having the strongest defensive boost in tank stance due to access to Inner Beast)

The major things that cause balance issues are:

Total DPS output - Which is irrelevant to tank stances.
Tankbuster mitigation - Which is irrelevant to tank stances (Since everyone just pops CD's like Holmgang in DPS stance)
Utility skills - Which is irrelevant to tank stances.
Snap enmity - Which is somewhat relevant to tank stances (Mostly it's down to not the actual stance itself, but other abilities or lack thereof. WAR has Unchained which is really good. While PLD has no good oGCD burst enmity skill like Equilibrium/Plunge/Dark Passenger. Then it's the whole spending a GCD for PLD to change stance thing too)

Thus, there's no real reason that tanks can't all have vastly different stances that offer a multitude of different gameplay shifts, so long as the above mentioned 4 major points are balanced.

Just like you can mess with literally every part of a tanks kit as long as those four things are balanced. DPS rotations, CC skills, fluff damage mitigation etc.

[Reynhart]

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.

Again, people claim that, but when did SE actually said that for SB's PLD ? Everything they changed for PLD screams OT, and we use it as an OT.

So you trust them to make a new system with new ideas better than the existing system they haven't been able to fix?

Well, on a much grander scale, that's exactly what they did to create ARR, so yes. Because, sometimes, the reason you can't fix something is because it's flawed at its very core.

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.

Well, I probably am in the minority, but no, I disagree on that. I think tanks should be different mainly on how they survive. At the beginning, WAR was supposed to survive by having an absurd amount of HP, and it's a shame they didn't stick with this idea. For me, Inner Beast would have been much more interesting if is still healed for 300% of your damage, but if the overheal would actually increase your max HP. Also, Grit being a copy/paste of ShO is the most disappointing DRK skill, in my opinion. Again, a Dread Spikes would have given roughly the same eHP, but with a different twist, making it as effective, but different.

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.

On casual content, their pros and cons won't matter much. And for difficult content, it's expected that people will still want to fill both the MT spot and the OT spot, for the same concept of having twice the same tank right now is not very effective. And, exactly like you can clear any content right now with a PLD as your "MT" and a WAR as your "OT", you'll still be able to clear any content with any couple of tanks. It doesn't stop them from being heavily more efficient at one spec.

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.

It's not "especially during leveling", it's "only during leveling". TBN fixes all pre-70 issue with DRK.

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.

No, because, suddently, you only have to balance tanks two by two. For example, if PLD/GUN are balanced as OT, and WAR/DRK are balanced as MT, you'll take any of them since, most of the time, you'll still want one "MT" and one "OT" to be more efficient. It's the same with RDM and SAM. People where upset because SAM's DPS wasn't balanced with other melee and RDM's with other casters, not with the whole 9 DPS, because casters, ranged and melee category already carry their own strengths and weaknesses.

When people make parties, they don't go around looking for 1 mDPS, 1 rDPS, 1 mage and 1 "Random" to make their parties.

Well, the matchmaking does, as much as possible. And I really think it's pretty common to have different types of DPS in your party, because they offer you different role actions and different limit breaks, to cover more situations. Funnily enough, every savage world first team covers the 3 types of DPS.

Otherwise they wouldn't be designed in this manner, since it suggests that the "OT" designed tanks would be unsuitable for a MT role, or at least, notably less effective.

Yes, less effective, but it's not a problem, as long as it can clear. Exactly like it's less effective to bring 4 MNKs or 2 DRKs in your party. Also, if you have an OT and a MT, you don't have to rely on tank swaps over and over to make the OT feel useful.

[shao32]

DPS being split into "Three types" isn't actually that true.

They're all just DPS.

When people make parties, they don't go around looking for 1 mDPS, 1 rDPS, 1 mage and 1 "Random" to make their parties.

They go with 4 different DPS. Often looking to optimize pDPS vs tDPS (So things like DRG/NIN/BRD have been standard for a while, with the 4th slot sometimes being MCH, sometimes being SAM, sometimes being SMN)

But really, any 4 DPS jobs will suffice for content. Certain mechanics will favour a particular DPS subrole, but it's still possible to clear with pretty much any set up.

there was always a sub-division on the DPS role, melee/ranged/caster has been a thing since forever, for balance, for new jobs added and for utility and ppl always try to form a party with at least 2 melees 1 ranged and 1 caster since ever, DPS are actually the best example of what Devs can do with tanks, all of then capable of do his basic duty tanking, but have diferent kits to being more suitable to being MT/OT, meaby they create 2 diferent sets of role skills.

MT vs OT as a division creates the notion that there HAS to be a MT and OT. Otherwise they wouldn't be designed in this manner, since it suggests that the "OT" designed tanks would be unsuitable for a MT role, or at least, notably less effective.

And if this division doesn't create this scenario where "OT" tanks can't MT... Then you've achieved nothing in this design except laid the foundations of imbalance between the 4 tanks and thus pushed people towards a specific meta pairing. Literally just doing the thing that people have been complaining about since HW.

there is always been a MT/OT notion in the game, but it was uncontroled with every tank should be balanced with everyone, that creates more and more problems this 2 last expansion that anything in the game, with a job taking adventage about the rest.

The difference here is that switching from melee to ranged to magical isn't changing role. You're still a DPS. You still fill DPS spots in parties. You can still party with literally every other DPS job and you'll be fine.

Switching DPS jobs is just switching your playstyle.

Switching between a "MT" and "OT" tank would be switching your role, in many iterations of balancing the 2 to be designed specifically for one sub-role or another.

why you think we are going to that extreme always?, ranged are diferent to melees in a lot of stuff not only in his personal rotations but they utility and role skills, why if they replicate this to tanks should be diferent?

Except the part where no-one gives a damn about stances?

Where also, everyone will pretty much guaranteed find a way to cheese content without utilizing tank stances? Like they have been doing since forever?

Designing "MT" around being in a Tank stance is doomed to fail hard. Either OT's will rein supreme with their superior "DPS Stance" or "MT" will just run DPS stance 24/7 too and all your balancing will lead to another stale meta of everyone in DPS stances using DPS combo's but oh wait, Holmgang is rigged af and PLD has bunches of utility woo...

thats not true, Pll care about tank stances, we complaing since HW that tank stances are so bad they are only a waste of space mostly and they can give us a emity buff instead, JP forum show his concerns about tank stances a long time ago and yoship adress the problem, so in SHB tank stances can be a important point on tank balance and most important to the theorical MT/OT balance path and no necesary have the same penaltys as they have today.

[Kalise]

there was always a sub-division on the DPS role, melee/ranged/caster has been a thing since forever, for balance, for new jobs added and for utility and ppl always try to form a party with at least 2 melees 1 ranged and 1 caster since ever, DPS are actually the best example of what Devs can do with tanks, all of then capable of do his basic duty tanking, but have diferent kits to being more suitable to being MT/OT, meaby they create 2 diferent sets of role skills.

DPS has always been DPS.

Not every party comp has been trying to go 2 melee 1 ranged 1 caster.

I've been in my fair share of parties that had 0 melee or 0 casters for example.

there is always been a MT/OT notion in the game, but it was uncontroled with every tank should be balanced with everyone, that creates more and more problems this 2 last expansion that anything in the game, with a job taking adventage about the rest.

MT/OT is normally about someone's position in a party. At least for games with not terrible balancing for Tanks.

The MT/OT divide in FFXIV comes down to the fact that they made tanks inherently imbalanced so that people pick the best tank and the second best tank and ignored the 3rd tank which is the weakest one.

All that forcing MT/OT designs does is make it so that people pick the best MT tank and best OT tank. With the other 2 being left in the dust.

Meanwhile, if you actually balanced the tanks so that none of them are significantly stronger or more useful than the others, then people will be able to pick any 2 tanks.

why you think we are going to that extreme always?, ranged are diferent to melees in a lot of stuff not only in his personal rotations but they utility and role skills, why if they replicate this to tanks should be diferent?

Since, if they don't go to this extreme, then it's just going to be a complete mess where 2 tanks are designed for a specific sub-role but it doesn't matter because they weren't designed enough around sub roles and people will still just use the 2 best tanks (Which are likely to be WAR and PLD, irregardless of which sub-role they belong to)

thats not true, Pll care about tank stances, we complaing since HW that tank stances are so bad they are only a waste of space mostly and they can give us a emity buff instead, JP forum show his concerns about tank stances a long time ago and yoship adress the problem, so in SHB tank stances can be a important point on tank balance and most important to the theorical MT/OT balance path and no necesary have the same penaltys as they have today.

No-one cares about Tank Stances.

No-one uses Tank Stances (Outside of the pull)

In fact, people are aggressively against any notion of being "Forced" into Tank Stances, as you might be able to see across a slew of threads that bring up the idea where people say they and a large portion of the Tank community will unsub/swap to DPS if forced Tank Stances became a thing.

[Megguido]

Feels like overreacting about something that we don't know. They just said they could split tanks into sub roles.

A MT / OT comp will most likely won't be necessary for any casual content. Any normal raid, trial, dungeon will be easily clearable with two "OT", even a party with 4 BRD without a DRG can clear anything just fine, because tankbusters barely kill you without any defensive, and there's no DPS checks either. Hell, you can clear Alphascape V4 normal with 2 DRK, 2 WHM and 4 Ice mages without any issue.

Savage and Ultimate would probably force people to get as many roles as possible, so one OT and one MT, but it's kinda the case for any other role anyway (e.g. you don't want 2 shield or 2 regens healers, you want a ranged for mana song etc...)

[Reynhart]

In fact, people are aggressively against any notion of being "Forced" into Tank Stances, as you might be able to see across a slew of threads that bring up the idea where people say they and a large portion of the Tank community will unsub/swap to DPS if forced Tank Stances became a thing.

No, people are against being forced into a stance that offers no benefit. That's why tank stances should be changed so that they have more value, either by being more efficient for MT situation, (Because let's be honest, DPS stances are as bland as tank stances, you toggle them and then forget you even have them) or by offering a different gameplay experience from when you don't have them.

[Alestrae]

I agree with Reyn that all tanks are capable of (main) tanking the content. I hope we all feel this way. I believe that designing to be capable is what designers do. They design abilities on what they think is thematic (or cool if you prefer) for the class to have. They chose for example not to call a PLD ability "mega-death gloom reaper". They then tweak the numbers enough so that all are capable of (main) tanking the content. And then they stop and move on to the next thing they have to design.

Then the players take over, players who genuinely want to help other players, players who want to be the best they can be, players who want to squeeze every bit of efficiency they can out of their characters (and others), players who want to "beat" the game and players who want evidence of why the job they play feels more "efficient" than others. All these groups of players then mathematics the abilities to death, they test rotations, burst windows, sustained dps, everything they can by playing their job as often as possible. Then they compare results and say this job (or set up) is more optimal and present their findings to everyone else. These people are in a way "Game Scientists".

Other players then look at this and decide to try it.

Just because one set up is optimal does not make the others less capable of the content. This is why I used the maths example in an earlier post. The "capable benchmark" is 9. 4 5 6 7 any added combination of those two numbers will meet or exceed 9. That means any combination is capable. However 6+7=13 which is the highest value above 9 the combinations can reach. That means they will be the most optimal/efficient.

Talking about core tanking now without specifics. People have said in this thread that the core identity of a Tank is mitigation(active or passive); threat(active/passive) and enough dps to get by outside of instances.
What if that is only the identity of the Main Tank, the one intended to be taking the hits.

Judging from what people have said about mechanics of the game in this thread, the core requirement for an off tank is to be there for a swap for unstackable strikes or debuffs. Which means an off tank needs only the ability to get attention for a short period of time.
If the job of the off-tank is there to "support" the tank what does that entail because there is an entire party or raid there doing that.

[Phoenicia]

Talking about core tanking now without specifics. People have said in this thread that the core identity of a Tank is mitigation(active or passive); threat(active/passive) and enough dps to get by outside of instances.
What if that is only the identity of the Main Tank, the one intended to be taking the hits.

Judging from what people have said about mechanics of the game in this thread, the core requirement for an off tank is to be there for a swap for unstackable strikes or debuffs. Which means an off tank needs only the ability to get attention for a short period of time.
If the job of the off-tank is there to "support" the tank what does that entail because there is an entire party or raid there doing that.

Then imagine this scenario: You queue for an extreme primal or 24-man and end up with all OTs, what are you going to do? Specially in 24 mans where interaction with the other tanks is limited because the alliance system in this game sucks (it's sucking is besides the point). We'll just have 3 tanks incapable of the three metrics you spoke of. And those 3 tanks can't help each other in the way you mentioned because of the sucky alliance limitations. And a total of 6 healers that wanna slit their own wrists.

I mean even right now, it feels bad to get into a 24 man and find 3 PLDs. Or I go in as a PLD and the other two non-PLD tanks are too uncomfortable tanking and they look at the 80k HP PLD to pull? Personally, I will only pull in Sword Oath and no aggro combos. Thanks to people not caring about their performance I get to hold aggro with my DPS alone.. But the boss dances a LOT in the early 10~15 seconds because the same 2-3k DPS people don't care to press diversion either. If you think that's toxic, ok, but don't blame me, blame SE for not giving a PLD a way to pull without mega DPS loss. I still think it feels bad even after doing that.

What I'm trying to get at is, and this is mostly personal experience: I don't want to play a job that feels bad to play. Most of us play to have fun and a lot of us find a class they identify with to optimize on is more fun than playing FoTM jobs. So if forced "main tanking" on job X is a "feels bad experience" I'm not gonna play it. I've been a tank player in MMOs since 2001 and I've never been even tempted to main things out of the role like I have in this game. I played casters in HW and most of SB because I did not like being pigeonholed on tanks into a certain "spot" and was not going to go back to tanking if my current static of friends didn't need a tank with the caster spot filled.

A lot of people will claim it does not matter outside of savage or ultimate or extremes or what have you, personally I do not do ANY level sync'd content because it feels bad to play without my abilities than to SE's idea of back-loading all jobs' good abilities in the last 4 levels. To me, it matters that I cannot use Flare or Hallowed Ground in Aurum Vale. It matters that I cannot deathflare pre-60. I'm sure there are many others that would NOT tank roulettes because they do not like losing IR on WAR, TBN on DRK, the ability to do ANY AoE on PLD and that's a lot of tanks out of your "leveling roulette". Imagine this extending to 24 mans where 2 out of the 4 tanks (being the OTs) do not queue at all because they aren't fun to tank on, assuming they have the capability to do so in the first place. It isn't "savage or ultimate", sure, but it's definitely bad experience for everyone involved.

Let us not forget the community's take on things. You still see people that think "PLD = MT because shield" and tell you to let the PLD do it or the PLD themselves fight you over aggro. What if what SE designates an OT is fully capable but people get sour and salty that the "OT" wants to tank instead of the "MT". Right now I just let the other tank that wants to tank "tank" because all 3 jobs can completely do it. But later when 2 jobs because bad at it how do we handle the situation? Do we get toxic towards each other because my job is better than your job or vis-a-vis? Or do we just leave the "baddie" for his healers to complain at him? Or do we wait for them to die and /point and /laugh?

Am I exaggerating? Probably yes as we do not have all the details yet, so it depends on what the "sub-role split" is done. If it is something like: "Pulling on A is better than B" then that isn't as big of a deal. I don't care if I'm the tank that doesn't pull an encounter. I DO care that if I am the only tank I need to be fully 100% capable of doing my job without paying a silly price like completely misaligned everything with raid burst or whatever other silly idea SE might have where not all tanks get to do their job for free.

It is already bad that tanks are the rarest breed. When you start to even split their capabilities and limit them even more, you'll have even less of them. Tanking is considered boring by too many people, so devs need to stop attacking what tanks find fun in their role. If tanks enjoy doing DPS, SE shouldn't nerf the DPS like they have actively been since ARR (read the book "Tanks and STR Accessories" :P). So if tanks are asking for inclusion in most content, you do not subdivide them and increase the gabs even further.

It is a fact that no matter what the balance team does in a scenario of more jobs than there are available slots, there will always be a "best" and a "worst". Even if the worst is 99.9999% of the best. But when the gap is a 0.0001%, people won't care as much. However, if the difference is so clear it will just lock the best class.

Example 1: Check WoW's monk that is literally immune to 1 shots vs other tanks that had more mitigation in raiding. Raiders took 2 monks for ALL of early prog even though monk required the most healer babysitting out of the tanks simply because the one-shot immunity is just too valuable.

Example 2: Death knight vs other tanks in mythic+ dungeons where DK's ability to self heal meant healers had time to focus on everyone else and even dish out DPS. Did people take the other tanks? Yes, if they didn't get kicked for joining on the wrong class. Were they well represented? Heck no!

But again, WoW is notorious for their inability to balance their classes and its community is well known for toxicity.

This game does allow us to have all jobs on the same character and my job not being the FoTM is easily mitigated by my ability to switch to the FoTM, it does NOT mean I am enjoying my time. Why do people that enjoy BLM, DRK, MCH and any non-meta job HAVE to switch to meta job they do not enjoy to do content the way they enjoy? Or have a VERY hard time to find people kind enough to accept them out of charity into their groups? This whole balance cry-outs and fiestas are about people asking for the ability to play >any< job they enjoy in >any< content they enjoy.

So yes, it DOES matter everywhere. After all, some of us like to perform well everywhere and not just "savage and ultimate".

Sorry for the rants. Had to get it out of my chest :P

[Reynhart]

Then imagine this scenario: You queue for an extreme primal or 24-man and end up with all OTs, what are you going to do ?

Well, considering you're expected to have at least one OT, first, you don't make it sound like your two/three tanks are useless.
And second, any content outside of Savage can already be cleared with every tank sitting on its tank stance 100% and just spamming their enmity combo over and over again, so clearing won't ever be an issue.
And again, the matchmaking already tries to build a more diverse setup, so it's easy to enforce it more on the MT/OT categories.

Specially in 24 mans where interaction with the other tanks is limited because the alliance system in this game sucks (it's sucking is besides the point).

Actually, no, it sucking is a more important point than the balance of tanks. Not being able to use some skills on alliance member is stupid.

We'll just have 3 tanks incapable of the three metrics you spoke of.

Again, not being optimal has nothing to do with being incapable of doing things, and since you only need one MT per content, whatever setup you have, you'll never have all of your tanks miscast.

[Kalise]

And second, any content outside of Savage can already be cleared with every tank sitting on its tank stance 100% and just spamming their enmity combo over and over again, so clearing won't ever be an issue.

Currently yes, but currently the tanks haven't been designed around a 2x MT + 2x OT set up.

There's a possibility that the design could end up being drastic enough to make it impossible for a particular type of tank to work in a "MT" capacity.

If not and all tanks can do all content... Then why bother even trying to design around 2x MT + 2x OT? Why not just make 4x TANK?

That's literally the entire premise of this thread.

Either designing for sub-roles is going to have such little impact that it's not worth doing over just designing all the tanks to have similar capacity.

Or it's going to end up being severe enough that it will affect random parties and screw over people who just prefer the general gameplay and aesthetics of a particular job.

At the end of the day, there hasn't been a particularly convincing argument about why designing the job into 2x MT and 2x OT is actually a great idea.

Since it doesn't help with any of the balance issues that have been plaguing Tanks forever, nor does it particularly open up any sort of design space (If anything, it limits design space)

It's literally the same issue as Healers have been dealing with in regards to Shield vs Regen healing. Where technically all healers can clear all content, but due to the inherent design in splitting them into sub-roles it creates massive imbalance especially when one type of role is preferred (Shield healing) and thus the best job for it is the dominant one and so people just take the best of the remaining options (Which is Regen AST because Shield AST sucks and shields don't stack)

So, it defies all logic for Yoshida to comment about having to hold back on releasing a healer because he has to rethink the entire paradigm of splitting healers into sub-roles because it flat out doesn't work because of the inherent imbalance it creates, while at the same time also suggesting to do the exact same thing with the Tank role

And again, the matchmaking already tries to build a more diverse setup, so it's easy to enforce it more on the MT/OT categories.

Make queues worse?

Brilliant idea. 10/10. Can't possibly irritate players at all, ever.

Again, not being optimal has nothing to do with being incapable of doing things, and since you only need one MT per content, whatever setup you have, you'll never have all of your tanks miscast.

...Unless they make it so that OT designed Tanks can't MT. In which case if you run/get matched 2x "OT" (3x in Alliance) you're screwed.