PLDs are not MT, but DRK are. Discuss.

[Jonnycbad]

It's not that PLD is a bad MT, it's just that half of their abilities are for buffing and supporting other people. Cover was probably designed for a MT PLD to Cover a party member with a Prey marker, but its often efficient for an OT PLD to simply cover the MT and pop a Sheltron or something. Intervention does nothing for a MT PLD, but it's sweet as an OT. PLD has little purpose use for their Oath gauge when MTing other than Sheltron.

[SleepyNeko]

Almost got it right until this.

War is terrible at ot. It brings nothing to the role of OT it cant do as a Mt. A properly played raid war sits in deliverance and slams fell cleave. As MT it does that while mitigating damage and using HG. As ot it just....cleaves the same amount. War is the worst OT in the game by a mile. Drk can at least tbn the Mt. Pld can do all the things. War just fell cleaves and it does that as MT anyway.

I'll disagree with this because there isn't actually many OT mechanics that require you to have anything special for the OT. Like I said before PLD can cover but even that is not required because you can just tank swap (cover with have less enmity generation as well compared to a tank swap). WAR is best in general just because it brings the most dps in most scenario due to not every encounter providing a 100% uptime and any fights that has a section for dps check will favor the warrior even more so. The only reason you don't see 2 Wars doing both MT and OT as much is due to LB building.

My main point is that WAR's damage is more preferable than PLD's Intervention + cover.

Note: These are my personal opinions/preference and by no means a rule that needs to be followed or anything like that.

[Izsha]

It's not that it has many mechanics. It's that drk/pld can assist the party better as the ot while war cant fo anything except fell cleave as ot and it does that as my so you gain nothing putting war on the side. Unless you run double war the OT should be a not war that can assist the party better

You dont need to tank swap for enmity. The OT hits voke(get same enmity as MT), then shirks the mt. Mt just got 25% more enmity. If you want to get real fancy.

MT has 100% enmity.
Ot vokes. OT/MT @100%.
Mt shirks OT. OT@125%. MT 75%
MT vokes (125%)
Ot shirks MT.

Mt now at 156.25% enmity. Ot at 94%.

Long story short, enmity has no bearing on who's a good Ot because shirks and circle shirks exist. Enmity is a complete bon issue. The only time enmity matters is when pulli. After that you you put whoever you want as MT and shirk the rest of the fight.

As for damage being preferable. War does the same damage as regardless of position. You have to pair a war with something. Both of the other somethings (drk and pld) provide more value as OT than war does making war always the MT (same damage regardless) and the other (drk/pld) as the better OT to the war as they can assist the war with mitigation and assist the party with mitigation. War is just gonna fell cleave bo matter what.

[Xenosan]

You almost don't have to even compare tanks to one another, just compare each relative only to themselves in the opposite role. Because ultimately we want to maximize each jobs kit, and MT/OT role will impact them.

Like said, WAR in MT isn't losing/gaining much of anything because they're operating the same as they would if tanking. Same with DRK. Its not really adding much value to TBNing the MT when DRK has the option to TBN themselves in that role.

But PLD can't PoA the party if they're facing the boss away from the group, I'm more likely to miss Req'd HSs if I'm having to weave in Sheltron+Sentinel/Rampart mid burst. Shield Swipe isn't much loss when I can shelltron splash damage consistently.

So if they're ardent about a MT/OT paradigm, it makes me wonder if there'll be more of the HW DRK kit incoming. HW DRK was better when tanking than when not: they had access to their whole kit when doing so.

If they go that approach I don't think an MT/OT paradigm will be so bad. Because the tanks delegated to the MT role will WANT to tank.

[Kalise]

If they go that approach I don't think an MT/OT paradigm will be so bad. Because the tanks delegated to the MT role will WANT to tank.

I think that's a particularly dangerous statement.

I mean... ALL Tanks should WANT to Tank. I mean, that's why they're a Tank is it not?

Like, what kind of fantasy is it when they design a TANK that's focused around "Don't hit me, hit someone else >.<"? Isn't that kind of support more traditionally used for Healers? Where they aid and protect people whom are being attacked, while they themselves keep safe too?

[Xenosan]

HW Warrior couldn't support the raid defensively, but did they want to tank - where Vengeance/RI were used for burst, not defense needs? And that was the most fun we've had imo. I may have been too vague, what I meant was `wanting to tank` because there exists (hypethetical) rewards for doing so (Reprisal, Low Blow, and Blood Price procs in HW DRK case). Tanking had a positive, significant impact on DRKs rotation. 'Composition' be damned I just want my cake and to eat it too, like DRK did.

So for this MT/OT paradigm, what I wait and see about is: will the MTs be maximizing/enjoying their kit when MTing (ala HW DRK), will the OTs be maximizing/enjoying their kit OTing (ala HW WAR/SB PLD)? The developers need to show us, not tell us. If the incentives match the categorization, it can be a situation like the color choice of the Ford Model T.

You can get the Model T in whatever color you want, as long as the color you want is black.

[Kalise]

So for this MT/OT paradigm, what I wait and see about is: will the MTs be maximizing/enjoying their kit when MTing (ala HW DRK), will the OTs be maximizing/enjoying their kit OTing (ala HW WAR/SB PLD)?

But that's the thing I have issue with.

In my opinion, ALL Tanks should be rewarded for actually tanking things. There shouldn't be any "Tanks" that are designed to be best utilized in the OT role, specifically in one where they actively DON'T want to be the one tanking because that lets them use their kit better (I.e. PLD's kit with Cover and PoA)

At the same time, I'm also of the opinion that ALL Tanks should have rewarding utility to use while in the OT position, so that they can have an impact on the party beyond just slapping the boss during that time.

Thus, not having the dumb "MT/OT" split being designed into their kit.

Since, if you design a Tank that's best utilized when not actually Tanking... That's not a Tank. That's a support DPS... While at the same time, if you create a Tank that is only at peak performance while actively tanking, well you get into situations where you try and cheese Tank Swaps to maximize that jobs uptime (As happened in WoW when Vengeance boosted a specific classes DPS higher than other Tanks, so you would do everything you could to ensure uptime on that single Tank which left the OT having no fun as they just slapped the boss for peanuts and occasionally taunted to take a TB and then get taunted back off when it wore off...)

[Kabooa]

I think that's a particularly dangerous statement.

I mean... ALL Tanks should WANT to Tank. I mean, that's why they're a Tank is it not?

Like, what kind of fantasy is it when they design a TANK that's focused around "Don't hit me, hit someone else >.<"? Isn't that kind of support more traditionally used for Healers? Where they aid and protect people whom are being attacked, while they themselves keep safe too?

You're joking, right?

Every time these forums bring up feedback for a tank it's always about damage. It's almost never about doing more traditionally tank things. it's about doing more damage. it's about more interesting damage rotations. Anytime tanking accessories come up, it's never about designing encounters or tanks so that scaling defenses and health are useful, it's -always about damage-.

When Dark Knight was considered suboptimal, the requests were split between having their defense fixed, -and doing more damage-. They wanted Reprisal and Low Blow back -to do more damage-.

In this very topic and others like it, the concern about MT/OT splits is not being able to play the tank you want, primarily because the assumed "Meta" will be OT/OT because it's assumed they'll do the most -damage-.

Every time a change gets suggested, it's almost always in the vein of more damage, even when it's more "cleverly veiled" around fairness or equity.

[Kalise]

You're joking, right?

Every time these forums bring up feedback for a tank it's always about damage. It's almost never about doing more traditionally tank things. it's about doing more damage. it's about more interesting damage rotations. Anytime tanking accessories come up, it's never about designing encounters or tanks so that scaling defenses and health are useful, it's -always about damage-.

When Dark Knight was considered suboptimal, the requests were split between having their defense fixed, -and doing more damage-. They wanted Reprisal and Low Blow back -to do more damage-.

In this very topic and others like it, the concern about MT/OT splits is not being able to play the tank you want, primarily because the assumed "Meta" will be OT/OT because it's assumed they'll do the most -damage-.

Every time a change gets suggested, it's almost always in the vein of more damage, even when it's more "cleverly veiled" around fairness or equity.

WTF does any of this relate to my post?

If you're trying to say that I'm assuming that I'm advocating for Tank Stance + Enmity spam playstyle then you're sorely mistaken.

Tanks should be getting damage increases for actively tanking. They should all have more things like Shield Swipe and Vengeance that makes using mitigation skills create DPS increases. They should benefit from being the focus of enemies, and this benefit should be relevant (I.e. More damage).

Also, WTF thread are you reading? No-one in this thread has talked about the "Meta" being OT/OT due to dealing more damage (That's the other thread where that was being discussed)

In this thread it has only been a discussion about PLD's being "OT's" while DRK's are considered "MT's" - With people talking about whom is easier to heal from an anecdotal perspective.

Neither PLD nor DRK are defined by their damage. Since, all 3 Tanks do roughly the same damage. That's why PLD is the preferential OT over a theoretical more damaging Tank job. Since, in lieu of having a job that's more damaging, we simply have PLD who has more utility.

If we bring in MT/OT divide debate from the other thread into here (Though, why we should have to, since the debate already has its own thread)

Then you get some people actively asking for "OT's" to deal more damage (As well as having more utility) - Which is actively going to create those OT/OT metas because we already don't care about defenses so much so that we don't use defensive stances, so people saying "MT's" should get more defence while "OT's" should get more damage and utility are literally advocating for an intentional death sentence for 2/4 tanking jobs.

If we get back to my point:

Tanks should WANT to be Tanking mobs. They shouldn't want to be hiding behind someone else, poking a boss's butt like a DPS. They shouldn't want to be stood in the backlines tossing out support skills like a Healer. They should want to be going toe to toe with the big bad that wants to smoosh the party.

This should be designed for, for ALL Tanks, it should be inherent to the role of Tank to actually want to be TANKING.

What bonuses it gives, should be relevant to make it enticing to be Tanking (Usually Damage), as well as encounter designs making it more likely to have BOTH Tanks be actively tanking for a lot of the time.

Having Tanks being designed specifically for an "OT" role where they just sit around and spam DPS, or sit around using support skills and that's their optimal playstyle where they want to spend as little time actively being a Tank as possible, is absolute disgusting design and a complete affront to the role - Especially so for anyone whom actually enjoys Tanking and likes the playstyle/lore/aesthetics of a particular job and doesn't want to end up being railroaded into this shitty role where they play a second class DPS because they're optimized to not be tanking in order to use their kit.

This isn't and will never be simply a matter of "Making defences useful" which you're seemingly believing I'm stating. But a matter of core mechanics.

Skills like Sheltron, TBN and Shield Swipe are the ideals of Tank design. They're fun to use to maximum potential, making sure to time them for the best mitigation as well as managing the resources they consume (Including the CD for TBN) and they promote actively tanking as they get their best benefit when you're the active target of the boss because more consistent damage is being pushed out to be able to utilize them.

THAT'S the sort of thing Tanks should be designed around. They shouldn't be designed around "Well... In order to be an effective member of my team... I need to stand around tossing out Cover/PoA but that means I need someone else to Tank so I can use them!"

[Kabooa]

WTF does any of this relate to my post?

The part where tanks pick tanks because they want to be tanks.

When 5.0 drops, I'm sure this is going to be readily apparent, just as it was in 4.0. It definitely won't be tanking that the forums are going to blow up about.