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

[Kalise]

the party composition is always have a melee, a caster and a ranged, you compositions include one of each

Not always.

if you have 3-4 tanks pulling same numbers but one bring a shield, the other bring a cover and the others nothing you will always pick the ones that bring something extra, its not rocket science, utility enchance party performance.

Yes and that's why I'm saying design tanks so that there isn't any that are bringing something extra.

Meanwhile your suggestion is literally make 2 tanks bring one thing extra and another 2 tanks bring another thing extra.

Also, in your suggestion you're making copy/paste out of the same 2 jobs in the role, only now there's maybe a chance that a particular sub-role just doesn't see play just like with previous expansions where the least wanted "Utility" from a job made them get left behind.

and still you claim not every tank should have an aoe shield and stuff like that

Not every tank NEEDS an AoE shield.

If they have something of comparable utility (I.e. DPS output because that's all these AoE shields are used for, LB generation to cause more DPS)

you know we are go to be redesing in many ways right? a bit of work now that saves and reduce the amount of work in the future its much more efective that dealt with a ineffective way to dealt with tanks as you suggest for ever, i recomend you try to learn about the proces and hard work and manteinance the battle system needs constantly and how complex its gets when you add more and more jobs to it.

You realize that YOUR solution is the one that causes the most work now, later and forever?

Since not only do you have to REBALANCE ALL THE TANKS NOW to conform into this system, but then you're COMPLETELY SCREWED if there's ever a new Tank job released because now you no longer have your "2 MT and 2 OT" balance, as you now have 5 Tank jobs.

Meanwhile, making the relatively minor changes to the current set up needs the least maintenance since you can literally keep ALL TANK BALANCE, INCLUDING FUTURE JOBS focused around having a central core framework for their kit.

All Tanks having Rampart and 30% DR CD and with parity between immunity (Or an alternate 3rd TB Cooldown).

All Tanks having Snap Enmity oGCD and so can pull.

All Tanks having equal (Or close enough) total DPS output.

All Tanks having equal amounts of OT utility.

There's no reason to deviate from this, you don't need to rebalance existing jobs around completely new sub-roles, you don't need to faff about with trying to make weird defensive CD skills try and work while being "Different" for the sake of being different. Thus you retain balance.

With the only "Maintenance" being to adjust damage numbers with new skill additions and changes so that DPS outputs remain similar.

oh yeah its more easy create a bunch of new skills for each tank to compete PLD utility and rework everything to fit WAR stances standars, for no talk about recalculate the emity and potency generation on PLD to have a proper pull, yeah much more easy.

Literally, it's far more easy than completely redesigning ALL 3 EXISTING TANKS to cater to this new "Sub-role" balancing.

On TOP of then also altering DPS (So you can get Slashing debuffs) and game mechanics (So you can get shields that don't generate extra LB)... And THEN still having to do a rebalance again later because when you homogenized both "MT" jobs into being the SAME and both "OT" jobs into being the SAME and you piss off all tank players by creating only 2 Tank jobs. To say nothing about how you have to completely scrap the system come a 5th Tank job.

you can nerf tank damage in many ways, stats are a think too you know? they dont need a flat 20% of damage penalty to control his damage, Tanks scream a str divorce since the problem of tank acc exist.

Good luck trying to hold back the revolt that would happen if they attempted to do this while forcing people into Tank stances.

Just look at what happened with Tank Accessories.

why you should rework pulls if tank stances are just removed? if you increse the enmity generation of all skill that generate enmity the result its the same, if tomahak and overpower generate more enmity without tank stance you will have ero problems.

Because pulls are based on using ranged skills + enmity combo + oGCD all being amplified by Tank Stance bonus enmity.

If you just crank up the enmity on these skills, then you'll have another situation like Savage Blade > Royal Authority crapping on OT PLD for both PLD and DRK whom use their oGCD skills for DPS too (Thus leading to another WAR meta because WAR uses Equilibrium for enmity which is completely useless for DPS)

i will repeat myself, tank damage depend not only of stances, stats are the most important thing, you can tune down tank damage by removing direct hit scales too, and make it scale less with certain stats.

Which doesn't solve the issue with stances at all.

People will still want to be in DPS stance so long as it is a DPS gain.

If it's not a DPS gain, then it is a pointless stance and will be ignored all the time.

less that you sugestions, the diference is makes the later balancing work more straightforward when its done compared to you scenario where every tank will constantly argue with everyone, but you want to make everyone have exactly the same and for that just delete 2 tanks, bcs a MMO where every tank do the same its a boring waste of resources.

Says the person arguing for making both pairs of tanks the same

Also, when they've finished messing with CD's and Utility (Which can all work in different ways so long as they achieve a similar outcome) then they can turn their focus onto the part of the Tanks kit that we actually use 99% of the time, which is the actually attacks.

If they don't have to consider how to balance things like Holmgang vs Living Bread vs Hallowed Ground or Cover/Intervention/Passage of Arms vs TBN and... Nothing.

Then they can focus more on making more varied and interesting skills for Tanks, where they have more vastly different playstyles and themes (Instead of just all being 123 spamming with PLD and DRK having some oGCD's to use alongside)

[shao32]

snip

I din't say DPS are balanced, i was talking how they are balanced.

And thats not true, there is a 3° scenario where each couple bring something that you will want in you party, and you Will always want to have one of each for It without any need of gutted MT or OT and having both of 1 side result in being less optimal, its simple.

Yes and that's why I'm saying design tanks so that there isn't any that are bringing something extra.

Not every tank NEEDS an AoE shield.

If they have something of comparable utility (I.e. DPS output because that's all these AoE shields are used for, LB generation to cause more DPS)

im impressed you say this 2 things in the same post, first of all you can't make something comparable to a aoe shied if is not another aoe shield, second the LB generation is a exploid if you din't notice at this time and age, and bring DPS utility outweight by far a unintended and no especified LB exploid.

Meanwhile your suggestion is literally make 2 tanks bring one thing extra and another 2 tanks bring another thing extra.

Also, in your suggestion you're making copy/paste out of the same 2 jobs in the role, only now there's maybe a chance that a particular sub-role just doesn't see play just like with previous expansions where the least wanted "Utility" from a job made them get left behind.


You realize that YOUR solution is the one that causes the most work now, later and forever?

Since not only do you have to REBALANCE ALL THE TANKS NOW to conform into this system, but then you're COMPLETELY SCREWED if there's ever a new Tank job released because now you no longer have your "2 MT and 2 OT" balance, as you now have 5 Tank jobs.

my sugestion is having 2 jobs bring something mandatory, something you will always want and other 2 have something similar so no need of the "OMG ppl are going to exploid and make OT/OT mandatory" like you repeat to the infinite.

and why you expect new tanks? you now the dev team are humans, they hve limited manpower and there will be a moment when they say no more jobs, still balance 2 jobs for 1 spot and 3 for another is way better that balance 5 at the same time.

Meanwhile, making the relatively minor changes to the current set up needs the least maintenance since you can literally keep ALL TANK BALANCE, INCLUDING FUTURE JOBS focused around having a central core framework for their kit.

All Tanks having Rampart and 30% DR CD and with parity between immunity (Or an alternate 3rd TB Cooldown).

All Tanks having Snap Enmity oGCD and so can pull.

All Tanks having equal (Or close enough) total DPS output.

All Tanks having equal amounts of OT utility.

There's no reason to deviate from this, you don't need to rebalance existing jobs around completely new sub-roles, you don't need to faff about with trying to make weird defensive CD skills try and work while being "Different" for the sake of being different. Thus you retain balance.

With the only "Maintenance" being to adjust damage numbers with new skill additions and changes so that DPS outputs remain similar.

we are not going to get new tanks in 4 year minimun, we probably not going to get new tanks at all, and you literally need to rework tank stances, create a bunch of new skills for each tank(veil,Sio, intervetion, cover, equilibrium,ect) , rework others to fit and remove others.

those are not minor changes, and you literally forgeth we are going to get new skills, the goal is make every job unique not equal.

Literally, it's far more easy than completely redesigning ALL 3 EXISTING TANKS to cater to this new "Sub-role" balancing.

On TOP of then also altering DPS (So you can get Slashing debuffs) and game mechanics (So you can get shields that don't generate extra LB)... And THEN still having to do a rebalance again later because when you homogenized both "MT" jobs into being the SAME and both "OT" jobs into being the SAME and you piss off all tank players by creating only 2 Tank jobs. To say nothing about how you have to completely scrap the system come a 5th Tank job.

PLD is already the best suited OT in the game, WAR is already the best suited MT in the game, DRK is getting several ajustments and GNB is a new job from scratch, what redesing of all tanks are you yelling at?

you literally say you want to homogenized all 4 jobs in to 1 model and you argue about fitting 2 and 2?, my sugerence creates more diversity that yours, and its more easy to balance.

Good luck trying to hold back the revolt that would happen if they attempted to do this while forcing people into Tank stances.

Just look at what happened with Tank Accessories.

don't ask me, Devs say tanks do to much damage, increasing the dps gap betwen tanks and DPS wont piss anyone, tank accesories drama comes bcs they din't offer nothing excep HP and we have to use HW ones instead since they scale poorly.

Because pulls are based on using ranged skills + enmity combo + oGCD all being amplified by Tank Stance bonus enmity.

If you just crank up the enmity on these skills, then you'll have another situation like Savage Blade > Royal Authority crapping on OT PLD for both PLD and DRK whom use their oGCD skills for DPS too (Thus leading to another WAR meta because WAR uses Equilibrium for enmity which is completely useless for DPS)

you obviously dont know that OT never use agro skills in the first place, PLD use riot blade not savage blade for royal authority and DRK is the one that generate the most agro of the 3 in the pull but WAR is the one that cost less dps in the process.

Which doesn't solve the issue with stances at all.

People will still want to be in DPS stance so long as it is a DPS gain.

If it's not a DPS gain, then it is a pointless stance and will be ignored all the time.

less agro generation? its a good reason to deactivate tank stance.

Says the person arguing for making both pairs of tanks the same

Also, when they've finished messing with CD's and Utility (Which can all work in different ways so long as they achieve a similar outcome) then they can turn their focus onto the part of the Tanks kit that we actually use 99% of the time, which is the actually attacks.

If they don't have to consider how to balance things like Holmgang vs Living Bread vs Hallowed Ground or Cover/Intervention/Passage of Arms vs TBN and... Nothing.

Then they can focus more on making more varied and interesting skills for Tanks, where they have more vastly different playstyles and themes (Instead of just all being 123 spamming with PLD and DRK having some oGCD's to use alongside)

idk making 4 tanks being the same is worse that having 2 and 2 being competitive with each other.

oh BTW i love how you say nothing instead of Sio and how PLD and DRK are just 123.

[Phoenicia]

I din't say DPS are balanced, i was talking how they are balanced.

And thats not true, there is a 3° scenario where each couple bring something that you will want in you party, and you Will always want to have one of each for It without any need of gutted MT or OT and having both of 1 side result in being less optimal, its simple.

That's the scenario where SE makes them so close that the whole point of the subdivision is moot. You are definitely not thinking this through which comes to me as a surprise as someone who cleared savage raids.

[shao32]

That's the scenario where SE makes them so close that the whole point of the subdivision is moot. You are definitely not thinking this through which comes to me as a surprise as someone who cleared savage raids.

i din't say they should be so close, i mean if 2 tanks bring something mandatory, a buff like slashing or something similar with certain similar utility, like buffing HP generation or what ever, and the other 2 bring another mandatory stuff with some unique utility that they only have each pair will feel unique and they can work around that like veil and SIO works or TBN and intervetion.

but this is just a sugerence, and the main point is there is many ways to implement the OT/MT and no necesary go to the "one pair its gonna be wooooooorse" doomsday im reading constantly from the same pair, in the end its simple, what we want? unique tanks or clones? and if we go to Kalise sugeretion why we get more that 2 tanks in the first place?

[Kalise]

i din't say they should be so close, i mean if 2 tanks bring something mandatory, a buff like slashing or something similar with certain similar utility, like buffing HP generation or what ever, and the other 2 bring another mandatory stuff with some unique utility that they only have each pair will feel unique and they can work around that like veil and SIO works or TBN and intervetion.

Okay... But if both of a pair bring the same mandatory utility...

Aren't they then just clones?

Thus you now only have 2 Tanks.

More literally so, if you still haven't actually addressed the underlying balance issues that causes the current 3 tanks to be unbalanced

Where the meta will still be WAR MT and PLD OT meaning another 2 years of DRK being obsolete. The only potential difference is that being the brand new job, GNB might usurp either WAR or PLD depending on which pair it ends up belonging to.

Due to if you just give them the same things, but still leave an imbalance in ACTUAL CORE TANK FUNCTIONALITY like how WAR is better at soaking TB's because Holmgang or how PLD is infinitely better at OT duties than literally any other Tank because it has 3 entire skills dedicated to providing OT support.

but this is just a sugerence, and the main point is there is many ways to implement the OT/MT and no necesary go to the "one pair its gonna be wooooooorse" doomsday im reading constantly from the same pair

Yeah, you could do it by MAKING TANKS EQUAL.

Thus MT/OT is designated by "Who wants to pull?" and then any 2 jobs can play together. Any 2 jobs can do the pull and "MT". Any 2 jobs can participate in encounters where actively tanking is shared equally between both Tanks (Also, with all tanks being equal, it actually opens up more design space for having encounters have both Tanks actively tanking)

in the end its simple, what we want? unique tanks or clones? and if we go to Kalise sugeretion why we get more that 2 tanks in the first place?

Your suggestion is the one that is creating 2 tanks.

Your the one suggesting give each "Pair" a mandatory utility (Thus making them very similar to each other within the pair)

Your the one who's suggestion still leaves blatant inbalances in play (Thus likely leading to the same WAR/PLD we just had for 2 years)

Your the one who's suggestion is also open to potential exploitation if people deem a certain "Pair" to have less relevant utility (Thus creating a "MT + MT" or "OT + OT" meta)

I'm suggesting making a small portion of Tanks kits the same or similar. So that you can have more freedom in making the rest of the kit unique and wholly different, so that you get 4 completely unique jobs with different playstyles and mechanics THAT CAN ALL PERFORM THEIR ROLE EQUALLY WELL

You know... Just like how BRD and MCH play differently, but they both still have Refresh allowing them to provide the same role benefit. Just like DNC is likely going to have a completely different playstyle and if they continue with Role Actions, will also have Refresh.

[shao32]

Okay... But if both of a pair bring the same mandatory utility...

Aren't they then just clones?

Thus you now only have 2 Tanks.

More literally so, if you still haven't actually addressed the underlying balance issues that causes the current 3 tanks to be unbalanced

Where the meta will still be WAR MT and PLD OT meaning another 2 years of DRK being obsolete. The only potential difference is that being the brand new job, GNB might usurp either WAR or PLD depending on which pair it ends up belonging to.

Due to if you just give them the same things, but still leave an imbalance in ACTUAL CORE TANK FUNCTIONALITY like how WAR is better at soaking TB's because Holmgang or how PLD is infinitely better at OT duties than literally any other Tank because it has 3 entire skills dedicated to providing OT support.

Yeah, you could do it by MAKING TANKS EQUAL.

Thus MT/OT is designated by "Who wants to pull?" and then any 2 jobs can play together. Any 2 jobs can do the pull and "MT". Any 2 jobs can participate in encounters where actively tanking is shared equally between both Tanks (Also, with all tanks being equal, it actually opens up more design space for having encounters have both Tanks actively tanking)

Your suggestion is the one that is creating 2 tanks.

Your the one suggesting give each "Pair" a mandatory utility (Thus making them very similar to each other within the pair)

Your the one who's suggestion still leaves blatant inbalances in play (Thus likely leading to the same WAR/PLD we just had for 2 years)

Your the one who's suggestion is also open to potential exploitation if people deem a certain "Pair" to have less relevant utility (Thus creating a "MT + MT" or "OT + OT" meta)

I'm suggesting making a small portion of Tanks kits the same or similar. So that you can have more freedom in making the rest of the kit unique and wholly different, so that you get 4 completely unique jobs with different playstyles and mechanics THAT CAN ALL PERFORM THEIR ROLE EQUALLY WELL

first of all please don't use majuscule, you look being rude yelling like that.

second, i edit my post before to respond to your concerns please be free to check it.

third, when i leave core funcionality imbalances? holmgang has been asked to be ajust for me and many others all the time, and what about PLD? they are pretty good at OT, thats the point, with another tank being able to compete against his kit abnd being equally desirable to PLD its all what we need, not being equally desirable to PLD, DRK, WAR or GNB at the same time.

so tell me, where i say each couple should be clones? at contrary that your solution mine dont needevery tank pull the same utility, and when compete to his partner they can have similar but not the same, and being more diverse.

you sugestion implique that every tank need to follow the same standar no matter what, if one do a thing the others have to do the same on everything.

i think meaby its my english or meaby it's not you first language either, but i think the word mandatory its pretty clear by himself, so if we have 2 mandatory buffs or whatever on tanks and we want to bring both of then for optimun gameplay how is this open to a potential exploitation to MT+MT OT+OTmeta? deus ex machina.


if they are unique in something there is imbalance, and where is imbalance some will get benefied and other not, rotation whatever, you have to think that tanks interact with DPS and healers buffs too, if you unique gameplay makes one get more benefic that the others you metod become worse and we got where we started but with Devs having more dificulty on adress it.

[Kalise]

first of all please don't use majuscule, you look being rude yelling like that.

Then actually read the posts.

Don't just keep spouting the same drivel about how "MT/OT Pairs are easier to balance" or how "It will make so much unique jobs!"

When people are responding to you with actual reasons why those claims are flat out wrong.

If you would actually read things, I wouldn't need to highlight the important aspects that you keep missing.

im impressed you say this 2 things in the same post, first of all you can't make something comparable to a aoe shied if is not another aoe shield, second the LB generation is a exploid if you din't notice at this time and age, and bring DPS utility outweight by far a unintended and no especified LB exploid.

LB generation is not an exploit. It's literally a mechanic about the game.

Absorbing damage with a shield generates LB (It generates bonus LB if it absorbs damage that would otherwise be lethal).
Healing damage generates LB (It generates bonus LB if it is applied to someone on low health).
Mitigating damage generates LB.
Dealing damage generates LB (It generates bonus LB if it is a critical hit)

If there's nothing that can be added that is comparable to an AoE shield (Hint: There is, given that Tanks shields aren't there for actual mitigation, but for LB generation. So any DPS boost that is equivalent to what the LB generation would give would work) then give all tanks an AoE shield.

my sugestion is having 2 jobs bring something mandatory, something you will always want and other 2 have something similar so no need of the "OMG ppl are going to exploid and make OT/OT mandatory" like you repeat to the infinite.

Yes, but what utility? What 2 different "Mandatory" utilities are you going to use?

Since you then have to make sure that both utilities ARE in fact mandatory otherwise people will just stack the better utility.

Also, again, what of the tanks within a pair? If they bring the same utility, then aren't they just clones? Going by your own logic. Why bother having more than 2 tanks if one pair is just going to be the same "MT" and the other pair just going to be the same "OT"?

first of all please don't use majuscule, you look being rude yelling like that.and why you expect new tanks? you now the dev team are humans, they hve limited manpower and there will be a moment when they say no more jobs, still balance 2 jobs for 1 spot and 3 for another is way better that balance 5 at the same time.

I was responding to YOU bringing up job additions:

"i recomend you try to learn about the proces and hard work and manteinance the battle system needs constantly and how complex its gets when you add more and more jobs to it."

So apparently, not only do you not read anyone else's posts, but you also don't read your own...

and you literally need to rework tank stances, create a bunch of new skills for each tank(veil,Sio, intervetion, cover, equilibrium,ect) , rework others to fit and remove others.

those are not minor changes

Relative to your suggestion where you need to remake ALL TANKS because yes, you will have to remake all tanks, otherwise you will have WAR and PLD completely dominating over every other job again. As well as tuning them more towards their preferred role and including those "Mandatory" utilities that you were referring to before.

and you literally forgeth we are going to get new skills, the goal is make every job unique not equal.

Oh FFS...

This is the last time I will respond to you after this. Perhaps one of these years you'll bother to read something:

TANKS DEFENSIVE COOLDOWNS DO NOT MAKE OR BREAK THEIR IDENTITY, ESPECIALLY AS A MAJORITY OF THEM ARE ALREADY IDENTICAL (OR NEARLY)

THIS IS TO SAY NOTHING ABOUT HOW YOU CAN ADJUST ATTACK SKILLS, COMBOS, JOB GAUGES, MECHANICS, STANCES, CROWD CONTROL, UTILITY, ACTIVE MITIGATION, ENMITY SKILLS AND MUCH MORE TO ALL BE WHOLLY UNIQUE FOR EACH JOB DESPITE HAVING A BASELINE "SET" OF DEFENSIVE COOLDOWNS, PULL POTENTIAL AND OFF-TANK UTILITY

my sugerence creates more diversity that yours, and its more easy to balance.

No it doesn't and no it isn't.

Please read literally anything I have written. As I have, time and time again, told you why this is not the case.

don't ask me, Devs say tanks do to much damage, increasing the dps gap betwen tanks and DPS wont piss anyone, tank accesories drama comes bcs they din't offer nothing excep HP and we have to use HW ones instead since they scale poorly.

It will piss off the Tanks who like that they deal damage and would hate to feel like actually trying to maximize damage output is pointless due to having low numbers irregardless.

Part of the reason why people hate the idea of Tank Stance is because it makes their damage output feel less meaningful. Where people equate it to things like "You pull, do a couple of enmity combos and then go make a coffee since there's nothing left for you to do"

Also, HW accessories were not used, it was all about Crafted accessories penta-melded for Strength.

you obviously dont know that OT never use agro skills in the first place, PLD use riot blade not savage blade for royal authority

PLD previously DID have Savage Blade as a combo skill for Royal Authority. This lead to a lot of complaints because it meant that as an OT, PLD would be generating a bunch of enmity with their DPS combo (It also still is the case with current PLD pre-Royal Authority where your only spammable combo is Rage of Halone)

Also, Plunge is used by DRK's on CD for DPS. This skill is also an enmity generating oGCD skill (If you DA it)

less agro generation? its a good reason to deactivate tank stance.

But if both tanks are in Tank Stance, then that's not a problem?

Also, you lose your passive mitigation then, meaning you take more damage from the Raidwide AoE's and any shared Tankbusters.

oh BTW i love how you say nothing instead of Sio and how PLD and DRK are just 123.

PLD and DRK are just 123.

Goring Blade > Royal Authority spam
Souleater spam

Just because you press a few oGCD's doesn't mean you're not just pressing the same 123 combo 99% of the time.

when compete to his partner they can have similar but not the same, and being more diverse.

Okay so now you have to create 4 different "Mandatory" utilities. With none of them being out of proportion than the other.

you sugestion implique that every tank need to follow the same standar no matter what, if one do a thing the others have to do the same on everything.

Not everything.

Just the things that are asked of them from their role.

Just like the idea for DPS is for all DPS to do a similar amount of damage, either through their own damage output (See: SAM, BLM, MCH) or through their own damage output combined with the damage they provide via boosts to the party (See: BRD, NIN, DRG and sometimes SMN (For the BLM + SMN comps))

Just like the idea for Healers is for them to all have a raise, esuna, an AoE heal, 2 types of single target heal and an oGCD heal.

Behind each role, there is a core framework for what they're supposed to be doing within a party.

Tanks are no different. They're all expected to face the same content and the existence of DF means that they're all expected to end up in random compositions. Thus, they, like every other role, should have the same baseline tools to help them do said content.

[Kabooa]

Yall gotta cool it.

[Phoenicia]

Yall gotta cool it.

The salt levels are on the rise and I'm low on stock though!

[Kabooa]

The salt levels are on the rise and I'm low on stock though!

It's hard work, but it's honest work.