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

[shao32]

i guess its the only way to express they disaproval to the MT/OT stuff, overexagerating and taking things to a extreme where they points are obvious but not necesary true.

[Baxcel]

DRK is just...there.

Dang.. I didn't have a cool down for this tank buster!!!

But besides that you should really look into DRKs as were more then "just there" Were above Pally for Physical damage and magical resistant, and were above WAR for Magical Damage an physical resistance. We're kinda that weird middle ground between the two that you bring based on magic or physical damage/resistance.

Also DRKs have the best aggro grabbing that I've seen.. Not once in all my runs of raids or Alliance raids has another tank taken aggro away from me,(minus swaps and provoke of course) even with Cid and all 3 tanks maxing aggro to block for the party.

[Phoenicia]

People keep throwing the "homogenization" word so much on these forums that confuses me to be honest I think the word is confused to something else, or extremely exaggerated. Keeping a base-line set of skills to maintain "functionality" in any role doesn't inherently mean homogenization. All healers have to have heals, no? Or do we remove heals from healers so they don't become homogenized?

I mean what do people expect?

Does it have to be that when I put on a great sword, suddenly I'm playing Devil May Cry for a Dark Knight, but if I equip my shield and become paladin I play, I dunno, block simulator or plants vs zombies? How "different" do jobs have to be to not be "homogenized"?

I swear, I think people see the first thing that looks similar and lose all their nuts screaming "homogenization!" Do we call an airplane a car because it also has wheels? They must be the same! I mean a Minibus and the Boeing 747 Airbus MUST be the same because both have the word "Bus".. Right? Right?! They HAVE to be!..... Or let's not kid ourselves and let's try to be at least a little bit reasonable.

I see the same crap on WoW forums sometimes and their tanks are REALLY different.

They have 6 tanks, 3 of which wear plate and 3 wear leather and when you look further into their kits they still are split more. This alone screams differences.

For example, 2 out of the 4 "heavy mitigation" tanks are leather wearers.

Only 2 tanks use shields and even these, use them VERY differently. Warrior blocks 100% of all physical and can "critical block" to block twice the amount. The other (paladin) has a random chance but can blocks more damage and may block magic. Even these two have completely different play styles to both deal damage and mitigate it.

Even the "taunt" effects are different. Monks' taunt increases enemies movement speed as they run towards them while the DK has a "grip" that pulls enemies to it (also counters the lack of mobility).

Sometimes, things can seem counter-intuitive like warrior being extremely mobile despite being a plate-wearer and druid is very sluggish in its bear form despite being a leather-wearer. But neither is at a sever disadvantage because of these differences as they have ways to mitigate said advantage. DKs have no mobility what-so-ever, but they cannot be slowed lower than 70%, they have root breaks and knock back immunity.

Not only do they mitigate differently. But they are "healed" differently. So healers need to learn different healing styles based on their own class and which tank they got.

Outside of a very small baseline kit that is "flavored" to the job fantasy that keep the classes in a "balanced" state (Mind you the balance in WoW is atrocious), the tanks feel and play completely different. And even when there are advantages like mobility or even one-shot immunity, you have other tools to counter said disadvantages. Some tanks might have a "harder time" dealing with a situation than others, but that doesn't mean they can't. And it's nothing as atrocious as to make you complain for basic functions like "I can't pull because no snap aggro lolPLD-FK-U-SE!".

Back to FFXIV, DRK, WAR and PLD do have a similar baseline kit when it comes to mitigation and combos. But that's where the similarity ends. As with resource management, varying potencies, playstyles and CD length are enough to make them different. They HAVE to be similar enough to function well in the same role though. When SE tried to make a completely-not-PLD tank in 2.0 they failed. WAR didn't have the required "baseline" toolkit of "Survive big hits" like PLD did and guess what happened? WARs either changed to PLD or BRDs because no one would take them.

The problem with the current system, and in turn why we're worried about further splits in this MT/OT fiesta, isn't homogenization or differentiation between the tanks, it is overloaded toolkits. Since Heavensward, we have had a best job for spot 1 (regardless of MT or OT), the other two tanks can fight over spot 2. Then when we got both tanks, we picked which sub-role they functioned best in (or didn't completely and utterly suck at in the case of HW's DRK/PLD in the OT spots).

EDIT: Adding a fourth tank and slapping an overloaded kit under MT or OT tag will only mean 2 tanks will be shunned out instead of 1 because we'll take whichever 2 that are overloaded.

In Heavensward WAR became dominant and on top for many reasons. For one, it was the only tank designed to be "OT" leaving DRK and PLD to fight over the MT spot. I won't go over the further rift between DRK and PLD here.

Secondly, and this gets much worse when, the OT has to be able to fill the functions of the tank in scenarios where you're the only tank. But when you are fully capable of performing well, if not better than the other two, in the other spot and let's not even get to how WAR was even a better MT since its mitigation wasn't behind the other tanks at all (it ironically mitigated more physical damage than PLD and barely slightly less than DRK on magical) thanks to it's dual nature where its mitigation was also its offense.

There was just no competition to ever drop WAR for another tank regardless of sub-role. . WAR simply was better at either spot, it just sat in the OT spot because neither PLD nor DRK could function well in the OT role for any extended periods of the fight (due to DPS loss from not taking hits and very low TP upkeep). LB limitations was the literal reason why double WAR wasn't the set-in-stone meta.

In Stormblood SE decided to "buff" PLD so it fixed all the clunk with its utility skills and then added some damage and mitigation on top. At that point SE still believed PLD to be designed as a main-tank mind you! Let's not forget how blocking magic with the shield made PLD cross over from damage-type-specific to universal, which steps heavily on both the WAR's and DRK's toes that still have 1-type-only mitigation tools. Suddenly the roles are reversed.

PLD, due to its overloaded kit of superb utility and being a no slouch in damage or mitigation, PLD locked a spot or both spots (4.0 had a PLD+PLD being the best composition). Then with the other tanks buffed and PLD tuned down a bit, it is still reigning supreme for the very same reasons WAR did in HW; PLD is the best OT, and it isn't behind WAR at taking hits if at all. The real reason WAR is always taken is simply the LB limitations and DRK being less popular.

So based on this game's history, what SE thinks tanks are regarding MT and OT isn't so much of a problem as much as if they decide to make a tank an "OT" by having it bring more than just "I can survive everything thrown at me because I am a tank" and have a "I do more DPS" and "I bring awesome utility" on top. Not "Oh all tanks are the same, let's pick the axe dude and the shield dude and call it a day" nor is it "DRK is different and we, as humans, don't like different, shoo shoo!"

Homogenization isn't even an issue in this game. Yes, difference in play-style is a must. But difference in basic functions isn't. A job being VERY SLIGHTLY better than another at something and VERY SLIGHTLY worse at another is welcome variety as long as the difference doesn't break a core function and the "worse here" is made up for with the "better there". After all, we all want our favorite jobs to be relevant, even if not the "best in meta".

Good example: DRK and WAR's ability to snap aggro is VERY close, WAR is slightly better when it comes to DPS as it gains 2 digits of potency gain, and DRK's is still better for aggro at a 2 digit potency loss DPS loss.
Terrible Example: PLD losing ~500 DPS because of 0-potency GCD and completely mis-lined-up CDs on pull is inexcusable.
Another good example would be how DRK can use Dark Mind (It's superior magic mitigation) to take a magical buster and in turn save Shadow Wall for something else it wouldn't mitigate as well as WAR/PLD.

Basically and in short: The whole point of this thread:

1- Designing off-tanks to be vastly less capable at tanking than main tanks is inherently bad design as you will be putting the wrong tag on a job that can't do its job. It happened in 2.0 and I assure you it WILL NOT happen again.

2- If off-tanks are fully capable of main-tanking (even if worse than a Dev-team-designated main-tank) but are meant to bring "extra on top" then 2 off-tanks will always be the meta and main tank jobs will just be tanks on the unemployment plans like how DRK currently is.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dang.. I didn't have a cool down for this tank buster!!!

But besides that you should really look into DRKs as were more then "just there" Were above Pally for Physical damage and magical resistant, and were above WAR for Magical Damage an physical resistance. We're kinda that weird middle ground between the two that you bring based on magic or physical damage/resistance.

Also DRKs have the best aggro grabbing that I've seen.. Not once in all my runs of raids or Alliance raids has another tank taken aggro away from me,(minus swaps and provoke of course) even with Cid and all 3 tanks maxing aggro to block for the party.

Not sure what you mean by physical "damage" and magical "damage".. If you're talking about our damage "type", that doesn't matter at all outside of very specific raid DPS. And being mainly physical is a bigger advantage.

Our personal mitigation is higher than PLD and WAR, true. But we also have the worst invulnerability in the game. And with WAR ignoring twice as many mechanics as we can with Holmgang alone, and tank swaps and cover being a thing, our personal mitigation barely matters at all, unfortunately. You won't see raid leaders looking for DRK because "higher personal mitigation" like they would get PLD or WAR for AoE shields and ability to ignore tank swaps for more DPS.

Aggro is irrelevant. But if you want to talk consistent enmity? DRK has the worst enmity multipliers out of the three tanks. If any other tank is sitting in their tank stance spamming aggro combos only, we won't be able to take off them without provoke.

What we DO have is the best snap enmity tools that barely beat WAR's. It's not even a competition when PLD doesn't even have it.

Beating other tanks in 24 mans is not a good indicator, either. A lot of tanks don't want to tank in 24 mans. Most of the tanks are not even tank "mains". Many others just sit in tank stance and spam enmity combos, which is the "wrong way" to play tanks. The skill gap is huge. I, personally, never try to build aggro or main tank in a 24-man because I'm either lazy or don't trust random healers enough to keep me alive in DPS stance even with my CDs used. If you see me "main tanking" in a 24-man, 9/10 times my DPS beat the other tanks' and because no diversion I end up tanking. The remaining 1/10 is the other tanks died. lol

[Kalise]

I think one of the biggest problems I'm seeing here is people still think that just because 2 of the tanks will be more suited for OT, they think they can't fill the MT role.

That's never going to be the case.

You literally cannot say that.

Not unless you have a magic future seeing power, or are literally privy to inside SE and know what the FFXIV devs are working on with their changes.

It is unlikely that OT's will be unable to MT any content.

Just as it is unlikely that two MT's will be unable to beat any content.

But then... What's the purpose of designing into these pairs? Why not just design them to be tanks and if one happens to err towards a MT or OT role in your design, so be it. They'll just compete with whatever other job also errs towards that subrole.

Or better yet, design encounters better so that "OT" doesn't then come with the connotation of being just a Blue DPS with maybe some extra utility to either help deal with TB's without a swap or to help mitigate RB's by protecting the rest of the party (In a significant way)

All tanks in FF14 have the basic tools for successful tanking. There's some small variation in effectiveness, but nothing major.

You mean other than the fact that PLD can't pull worth crap?

That WAR is just undeniably better than everyone else at ignoring TB's in fights due to a significantly shorter CD on their 1 button answer to any TB?

That PLD is literally the only tank that has significant tools to do something while not actively tanking that isn't just "DPS the boss"?

At which point... Why is this design for MT/OT then required? If all tanks already (Mostly) have the same baseline tools?

What tools will you then create or remove to then make this division of sub-roles happen? Will you remove Hallowed Ground and Sentinel from Paladin so that they can only mitigate via Cover/Intervention style CD's? Will you give Warrior an additional Holmgang CD so they won't actually ever need another person to soak a TB?

How will you design encounters to play around these defined "MT" and "OT" roles? Will there be things that demand you have a MT/OT or are considerably easier when you have both? Thus leading back to the issue of "Will an OT be able to MT?"

[Reynhart]

I mean what do people expect?

For DRK not to have a copy/paste of Shield Oath as a tank stance, since they showed they could do something else with WAR. For all tanks to not have the exact same basic mitigation skill with Rampart...Things like that. Or the whole role actions removing uniqueness from, mainly, PLD and DRK.

Even the "taunt" effects are different. Monks' taunt increases enemies movement speed as they run towards them while the DK has a "grip" that pulls enemies to it (also counters the lack of mobility).

It's funny because 1.x has two "Taunts" skill with different effects. But ARR only kept Provoke.

Back to FFXIV, DRK, WAR and PLD do have a similar baseline kit when it comes to mitigation and combos. But that's where the similarity ends.

It's already too much. WAR's flavor is supposed to be a massive pool of HP. Why didn't they follow this instead of putting damage reduction everywhere ?

When SE tried to make a completely-not-PLD tank in 2.0 they failed. WAR didn't have the required "baseline" toolkit of "Survive big hits" like PLD did and guess what happened?

It's not only because they didn't have the "I'll survive skill". They had literally one skill that enhanced their eHP, with Thrill Of Battle. Even their tank stance didn't improve healing received by itself. You can't use a completely broken WAR to justify having to copy-paste PLD's kit. They could have separated the healing received from wrath (Which they did), give a ultimate surviving skill (which they did), but also kept the 300% HP leech to Inner Beast, but that the overheal would increase your HP max, always gaining the full effect of the skill. Convalescence should also have been a WAR skill, since they relied on their HP pool...And since PLD had Sentinel and Rampart, two skills that reduces damage, WAR could have had two skills that heals him and increase its HP.

Secondly, and this gets much worse when, the OT has to be able to fill the functions of the tank in scenarios where you're the only tank.

The only content where you're supposed to be the "only" tank is for 4-man, and you don't need optimization there. For the rest, if you're the only tank as an "OT", you will be able to take the mantle while your MT is being resurrected.

At that point SE still believed PLD to be designed as a main-tank mind you!

We're still waiting for that specific quote.

How will you design encounters to play around these defined "MT" and "OT" roles? Will there be things that demand you have a MT/OT or are considerably easier when you have both? Thus leading back to the issue of "Will an OT be able to MT?"

Almost exactly like they are now. You don't have that much fights that requires two full time tanks. For example, in Alphascape v1, the debuff that requires the tank swap lasts 15s. Thus, the "MT" can totally get back the boss after that, there's no need to the OT to tank for a long period of time.

[Kabooa]

You literally cannot say that.

Well, that just applies to this whole thread now, doesn't it?

Looks like we can pack it up guys.

[Phoenicia]

For DRK not to have a copy/paste of Shield Oath as a tank stance, since they showed they could do something else with WAR. For all tanks to not have the exact same basic mitigation skill with Rampart...Things like that. Or the whole role actions removing uniqueness from, mainly, PLD and DRK.

Again, calling an airplane a car because it has wheels.

It's already too much. WAR's flavor is supposed to be a massive pool of HP. Why didn't they follow this instead of putting damage reduction everywhere ?

*other WAR stuff*

I know very well how WAR tanked (or fell short) in 2.0 as it was my main and I killed all relevant content back then including T5.

There's a very good reason SE went the path they did. For one, added health isn't as effective as damage reduction. 20% reduction is 25% eHP increase. 30%? that's 43% eHP increase. You'll end up with WAR having to nearly double its max health to match the reduction of Sentinel. What about the poor healers? Healers hate tanks that are harder to heal (the main reason behind 2.0 WAR's failure). We already have green DPS that don't want to heal and scream at you for taking damage when their oGCD is not enough to keep you alive. Or do we need to have eHealing increased as well by the same percentage? What about healer aggro then?

But in the end when we break all that down: PLD presses Sentinel for 40% damage reduction and survive buster. WAR pressed <Insert super new TOB name here> for 70% increased HP to survive buster, when it comes to, you know, game play, it's exactly the same thing of press 1 button to survive TB. How is it any less homogenized? SE knew this and chose the more efficient route. And WAR still plays completely different to PLD even when it comes to damage mitigation. Mainly due to different defensive value and different time patterns (Lots of 90s and 120s vs 1 90s and lots of 180s).

The only content where you're supposed to be the "only" tank is for 4-man, and you don't need optimization there. For the rest, if you're the only tank as an "OT", you will be able to take the mantle while your MT is being resurrected.

Pressing my buttons isn't optimization, it's playing the game and not being bad. And being bad because of my job it feels bad to play the job. So currently, that content feels fucking bad to play as a PLD, so I don't do it as a PLD. That's 1 less tank on DF. Add many more like me and you have much less of the already least played role. Also content where "only tank" is not just 4-man. 24-mans have 3 "only 1 tanks". People like to drop OTs and heals for solo-tank/solo-heal setups as soon as they have the gear for it. Ever thought how terrible it feels to play those content?

I mean you of all people mained PLD in HW and switched of it mid-expansion. I remember talking to you in Idyllshire where I asked you why and you said it's until SE gives PLD some love. It isn't about being optimal all the time.. It's about not feeling very bad that you're playing the wrong job for the right situation.

It's like having to kite a boss in dungeons as a BLM... Yes, the DPS loss doesn't matter, but spending 10 seconds of inability to cast while a BRD or even any melee would've done more damage would definitely feel much better. Oh but even the "turret-play-style" BLM has enough tools to handle the kiting situation..... Why doesn't PLD have the proper tools to pull without eating 4 spoonfuls of poo in the form of Rage of Halone and Sword Oath GCD?

For DRK not to have a copy/paste of Shield Oath as a tank stance, since they showed they could do something else with WAR. For all tanks to not have the exact same basic mitigation skill with Rampart...Things like that. Or the whole role actions removing uniqueness from, mainly, PLD and DRK.

Again, calling an airplane a car because it has wheels.

It's already too much. WAR's flavor is supposed to be a massive pool of HP. Why didn't they follow this instead of putting damage reduction everywhere ?

*other WAR stuff*

I know very well how WAR tanked (or fell short) in 2.0 as it was my main and I killed all relevant content back then including T5.

There's a very good reason SE went the path they did. For one, added health isn't as effective as damage reduction. 20% reduction is 25% eHP increase. 30%? that's 43% eHP increase. You'll end up with WAR having to nearly double its max health to match the reduction of Sentinel. What about the poor healers? Healers hate tanks that are harder to heal (the main reason behind 2.0 WAR's failure). We already have green DPS that don't want to heal and scream at you for taking damage when their oGCD is not enough to keep you alive. Or do we need to have eHealing increased as well by the same percentage? What about healer aggro then?

But in the end when we break all that down: PLD presses Sentinel for 40% damage reduction and survive buster. WAR pressed <Insert super new TOB name here> for 70% increased HP to survive buster, when it comes to, you know, game play, it's exactly the same thing of press 1 button to survive TB. How is it any less homogenized? SE knew this and chose the more efficient route.

The only content where you're supposed to be the "only" tank is for 4-man, and you don't need optimization there. For the rest, if you're the only tank as an "OT", you will be able to take the mantle while your MT is being resurrected.

Pressing my buttons isn't optimization, it's playing the game and not being bad. And being bad because of my job it feels bad to play the job. So currently, that content feels fucking bad to play as a PLD, so I don't do it as a PLD. That's 1 less tank on DF. Add many more like me and you have much less of the already least played role. Also content where "only tank" is not just 4-man. 24-mans have 3 "only 1 tanks". People like to drop OTs and heals for solo-tank/solo-heal setups as soon as they have the gear for it. Ever thought how terrible it feels to play those content?

I mean you of all people mained PLD in HW and switched of it mid-expansion. I remember talking to you in Idyllshire where I asked you why and you said it's until SE gives PLD some love. It isn't about being optimal all the time.. It's about not feeling very bad that you're playing the wrong job for the right situation.

It's like having to kite a boss in dungeons as a BLM... Yes, the DPS loss doesn't matter, but spending 10 seconds of inability to cast while a BRD or even any melee would've done more damage would definitely feel much better. Oh but even the "turret-play-style" BLM has enough tools to handle the kiting situation..... Why doesn't PLD have the proper tools to pull without eating 4 spoonfuls of poo in the form of Rage of Halone and Sword Oath GCD?

We're still waiting for that specific quote.

I'm not going to find it for you. Yoshi-P has always considered PLD as the "Defensive tank" throughout ARR and HW and his balance changes early Stormblood still followed that assumption. The dev team does have enough data and know that PLDs are a preferred OT now, but that doesn't change the fact it was designed with being the prime-defensive main tank of FFXIV in mind.

Well, that just applies to this whole thread now, doesn't it?

Looks like we can pack it up guys.

The thread is about expressing worries based on past experience as to why it is a terrible idea. We do not even know if Yoshi-P is going to stick to the whole MT/OT deal because he himself said he may not do so.

[shao32]

And still we have to wait a month for the pax, it's gonna be a loooong wait.

[Kabooa]

The thread is about expressing worries based on past experience as to why it is a terrible idea. We do not even know if Yoshi-P is going to stick to the whole MT/OT deal because he himself said he may not do so.

Based on past experience is also known as anecdotal evidence.

I've played plenty of MMOs that featured the split between Main and Off Tank, and those games had much more varied encounters than FF14 did. Your encounter design is naturally limited by the tools your players can bring.

So anecdotal evidence that it is a 'terrible idea' is easily countered by anecdotal evidence that "it isn't".

[Kalise]

So anecdotal evidence that it is a 'terrible idea' is easily countered by anecdotal evidence that "it isn't".

And yet... No-one has brought up the anecdotal evidence that "It isn't"

Instead, just saying things like "It's easier to balance because it's easier" or "It's not terrible because it's not!"

People have brought up other games to show where not dividing tanks has allowed for varied encounter design and wholly unique skillsets and gameplay within Tanks - WoW being a prime example even if it's become a terrible game due to lack of content and boring grinds.

There are a plethora of ways where MT vs OT designs can be bad. From minor inconveniences to actively destroying DF accessibility for 8 man content (With also nuking the already low population of tank players)

With also the fact that, tanks are already pretty close to being equally capable and if they were just pushed over that little threshold and were basically all equally capable, it would open up the doors for having literally any content be possible. Since if all tanks were equally capable, you can design anything and not have to worry about "Oh, we can have people split into 2 groups because what if [Insert Subrole] doesn't have the other tank nearby to provide [Insert Subrole Specific Skill] for them!" or "We can't do this mechanic, because then people would stack [Insert Subrole] Tanks to cheese it" or "What happens if DF matches up with 2 Tanks from the same subrole? Welp, can't make any mechanics that utilize both subroles!"

Thus allowing for more focus on designing other aspects of tanks. Such as improving their rotations, culling out the stupid Enmity rotation that has been sitting around being useless for years. DESIGNING MT/OT DIFFERENCES INTO STANCES, so that they can BOTH be useful for tanks and provide fun and interesting gameplay shifts to utilize both (Instead of feeling punished for when you HAVE to go into the defensive stance)