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

[Limonia]

I didn't read the whole thread, but most I've seen now are discussions on abilities, enmity and so on. So I'll just leave it at that.

When thinking about how 2/4 tanks will be better at being MT and the other two being better at OT, this comes to mind first:
Personally, from the 3 tanks we have now, I like Dark Knight the most. So when I play tank, I most likely go as DRK. My boyfriend prefers Warrior.
What I'm saying is that there are a lot of people that don't like all tank jobs equally, but prefer one of them.
The biggest problem is that you are actually forced into playing MT (or OT resp.) all the time. So if someone prefers to play PLD he will actually never MT, even if he would like both or even prefer to MT (not counting groups where people don't care because usually even casuals care after they read about meta and so on).
It's already like that now, so I was really kind of hoping that with the next expansion all tanks will be equal - or at least almost equal - at being MT or OT.
I don't mind either in normal content actually. But when learning something that's harder, I actually prefer being OT because as rarely as I tank, I'm not the best at boss positioning. For example: If DRK/WAR will be dedicated MT I either have to MT even if I don't like it, play PLD/Gunbreaker (what's the abbreviation? GNB?) or not play tank at all.
(Yes, I know there are tank swaps. A lot of fights only have them for short periods of time though and it's not even between the tanks. Or if there is no debuff the MT provokes back/gets covered etc.)

[shao32]

some ppl love BLM but hate cast bars, some ppl love NIN but love being a selfish DPS too so they have to dealt with his low personal damage betwen DDs, others love pick jobs with high support skills but they can't enjoy as result SAM, MNK, BLM, SMN, RDM.... its a pretty large ect saddly.

when you pick a job you pick his position in a party too, SAM you are going to be a selfish melee, AST you are going to be a high suppor healer, BRD prepare to dealt with some mechanics and buff you party as much as you can/need, tanks are not diferent despite being more neutral with this, and thats the charm of picking a certain job over others.

[Bright-Flower]

I'm really kind of curious how SE would go about doing this.

Because, all four tanks are going to HAVE to be capable of both at a basic level.

Every tank needs to be able to handle dungeons. Every tank needs to capable of off tanking in alliance raids. Every tank needs to be capable of both roles if you get two of one subset in a raid or trial in dutyfinder. The differences could only really be critical in high end EX trials/savage raids. You can't make the gap too wide or else you mess with casual content and you can't make it too narrow or else there's no point in the distinction.

You can't split up main/off tank into different duty finder roles without potentially screwing up queue times more.

So I'm VERY curious what SE plans. Will the MTs have a bit more agro/defenses and hte OTs a bit more utility/damage?

[shao32]

i belive they are going in to sinergy betwen each pair to make it more efective, all tanks have to be capable of pulling , keeping agro and mitigating properly, sinergy to make you want 1 of each pair can come in many ways and don't restric tanks on his basic capabilitys.

[Izsha]

i belive they are going in to sinergy betwen each pair to make it more efective, all tanks have to be capable of pulling , keeping agro and mitigating properly, sinergy to make you want 1 of each pair can come in many ways and don't restric tanks on his basic capabilitys.

Synergy doesnt have to be MT OT though. It can just be a pair of tanks that synergize but without restricting them to mt/OT. Like let's say gun also has slashing debuff. Well that doesnt stack with wars so you would be better off not pairing war and gun together to get something a drk or pld brings. That has nothing to do with who gets hit and who doesnt. (Its just an ez example. I actually hate damage type always up buffs, but it could be almost anything with the same effect.)

The better question is why keep trying to force restrictions
Restrictive sub roles. Restrictive pairs of tanks. All these player restrictions for what? Were getting 4 tanks. What's the point if adding more options only to lead a campaign to reduce player choice at the same time we gain choices.

[shao32]

snip

That's depend of the definition of MT/OT, we ask ourselves what this mean for SE, they are Japanese and they mentality is different to the western company's so what for some it's a "OMG they are going to make 2 tanks dealt less dps and have more useless defense" for then it's not what they mean to do.

I assume it's not going to be much different from the actual relation we have between WAR and PLD bcs the Devs have a strong policy of have every job being viable and they work on combat desin around that since forever so I take all this drama as a over exaggeration.

So let's look at WAR/PLD and how interact in real combat, PLD have a strong OT kit and WAR a MT one, and still both actively tank in savage and extremes, PLD pull problems derivate from the Buffs on the other so I don't take this as a characteristic of PLD but more a problem generated from solve another problem, and still both are different and unique and ppl pick one of other for personal preference with is fine and no need to give WAR a cover version or to PLD a equilibrium or holmgang.

So to you final question, for me it's simple, make balance efforts more easy to address and implement, with more jobs more hard is fulfill this task, they need a way to make this viable and keep they standards at the same time with the manpower they have, it's like having a 15 kitty's and you want all of the more or less in line, it's impossible, but if you put it in boxes and each pair have his box it's more easy to determinate where to put them when they try to Scape.

We can't realistic expect they keep adding more and more jobs and keep it balanced with eachother and being unique at the same time without ways to keep them under control and have easy ways to see where they lack or why are so strong and address it properly without take several months or more that a year in the process.

[whiskeybravo]

I'd rather we just call it what it is: a concept that seems to offer a glimmer of hope for achieving a balanced state. Nothing wrong with "wanting to achieve a balanced state" in and of itself, but this concept in particular is simply not strong enough - on it's own - to convince everyone that it's the correct action that should be taken. I think we all agree some action needs to be taken, and after 31 pages of comments I think we can agree there still remains some doubt. Not everyone has jumped on board, for reasons which have mostly been explained by those individuals.

There is simply not a clear consensus that this is the appropriate direction to move in.

[Derio]

I dont think it is a good direction to move in because you will have the imbalance that is currently WAR which is currently the best Main tank and off tank.

I still think the best option is to balance around being both off tank and main tank but that is probably asking for too much.

[shao32]

I dont think it is a good direction to move in because you will have the imbalance that is currently WAR which is currently the best Main tank and off tank.

I still think the best option is to balance around being both off tank and main tank but that is probably asking for too much.

WAR is not the best OT, PLD is, WAR only do dps and use Sio and Sio can be used on the MT spot, PLD have cover, intervention and other stuff that are mostly effective in the OT spot.

Even DRK it's better OT that WAR with TBN.

[Kaedan]

I didn't read the whole thread, but most I've seen now are discussions on abilities, enmity and so on. So I'll just leave it at that.

When thinking about how 2/4 tanks will be better at being MT and the other two being better at OT, this comes to mind first:
Personally, from the 3 tanks we have now, I like Dark Knight the most. So when I play tank, I most likely go as DRK. My boyfriend prefers Warrior.
What I'm saying is that there are a lot of people that don't like all tank jobs equally, but prefer one of them.
The biggest problem is that you are actually forced into playing MT (or OT resp.) all the time. So if someone prefers to play PLD he will actually never MT, even if he would like both or even prefer to MT (not counting groups where people don't care because usually even casuals care after they read about meta and so on).
It's already like that now, so I was really kind of hoping that with the next expansion all tanks will be equal - or at least almost equal - at being MT or OT.
I don't mind either in normal content actually. But when learning something that's harder, I actually prefer being OT because as rarely as I tank, I'm not the best at boss positioning. For example: If DRK/WAR will be dedicated MT I either have to MT even if I don't like it, play PLD/Gunbreaker (what's the abbreviation? GNB?) or not play tank at all.
(Yes, I know there are tank swaps. A lot of fights only have them for short periods of time though and it's not even between the tanks. Or if there is no debuff the MT provokes back/gets covered etc.)

But that's not actually going to be the case.

There will be plenty of situations where two OT or two MT get put in an instance. One of the OT can still do the MT job fine, just like one of the MT can still do the OT job fine. The concept they are going with where there are 2 tanks "suited" for OT and 2 for MT does not exclude them from being able to do the other role. Right now we have instances all the time of two PLDs in the same party, and one can still easily MT no problem.