Preventing homogenization in tank mitigation

[Lyth]

The problem is that tankbusters tend to be the only tank damage that actually matters. Abilities like Bulwark were historically poorly received because they just aren't reliable when the damage matters. You'd really only break even with a conventional %DR move if you have a multi-hit tankbuster like Phantom Flurry, because it converges on the expected value when you have a large number of hits.

[Cabalabob]

The problem is that tankbusters tend to be the only tank damage that actually matters. Abilities like Bulwark were historically poorly received because they just aren't reliable when the damage matters. You'd really only break even with a conventional %DR move if you have a multi-hit tankbuster like Phantom Flurry, because it converges on the expected value when you have a large number of hits.

That’s why I say the game would need to have evolved differently. Back in ARR before the WAR adjustment the only tankbuster in the game was twintania’s death sentence which was the only major stumbling block WAR was facing in the entire game and what lead to the adjustment to WAR having similar tools to PLD. That was the beginning of the end for unique tank mitigation. Every tank from now on was going to need that baseline kit of an invuln, 2 major mitigation tools and some fluff mitigation and in turn all encounters needed to be designed with that mitigation in mind, hence tank busters being the only real threat spread evenly enough for that baseline mitigation kit.

If they hadn’t overcompensated and just given WAR the holmgang adjustment so they could handle death sentence without dying while the PLD recharged the game could look much different now. Mitigation could have been more diverse, support mitigation could have become more prevalent earlier and encounter design could have been less rigid. % mitigation for consistent damage could have been played with and for the occasional tank buster WAR would have holmgang and GNB could force a dodge.