There's an old saying "three is a crowd" - Not enough tanks?

[Anger]

The same can be said for AST, SCH, and WHM. Astrologian is being left out now for not bringing robust enough heals to the party.

Moreover, the way WAR is set up it provides the Slashing Debuff giving some benefit to both tanks whereas the PLD and DRK can't really complement each other. This makes WAR mandatory in raids, almost and the other tanks can be left out, in most cases the PLD.

Three is a crowd and I believe this is a bad design.

[Alahra]

It doesn't have much to do with the number of tanks, really, and everything to do with the fact that WAR is essentially mandatory (both for its greater performance as OT than the other two tanks and the slashing debuff and Storm's Path for progression). If PLD and DRK were both better OTs and the slashing debuff and Storm's Path could be provided by other classes (either the other tanks or perhaps another DPS class), WAR wouldn't be mandatory, thus allowing for more flexibility in tank choice.

[Reynhart]

Actually, I think it has to do with the numbers of available tanks versus the number of required tanks.
We all know that stacking jobs lowers LB charging, so it was natural to take both tanks and both healers, since we needed two of them.

Now that we have the choice, people start seriously theorycrafting to decide which one of them will be excluded.

[Phoenicia]

Hmm, not really. Double job stacking didn't prevent world firsts from stacking 2 monks for the entirety of SCoB and FCoB.

People let the PLD MT because it was safer than WAR. That hasn't changed yet.

DRK came out, it is a safer option than WAR still. So naturally WAR was pushed into the OT spot.

Also WAR doing a great job as OT because it has synergy and no TP issues helped "solidify" this spot.

All of this though is a mass "stupidity" on the player base though.

Any of the three classes can OT just as well as any other. WAR is by no means mandatory. Any one thinking otherwise is just following the "hive mind".

MTs push mitigation a little over one another but not enough to disregard any of them. Any of the three tanks can tank any encounter. There is no point in the game where an attack would kill 1 tank but not the other two. The difference in mitigating any attack with proper CD usage is ~10%.

Parses have proven all three tanks coming really close to one another in terms of DPS with WAR being slightly ahead. The difference is ~8%.

This whole PLD exclusion is a knee-jerk reaction to Lucrezia and Elysium swapping PLD for DRK BECAUSE they swapped MNK for NIN for Trick Attack. They wouldn't swap DRG because of Battle Litany.

This thread doesn't help the situation, it only helps spread this misconception that PLD isn't good.

[Alahra]

Parses have proven all three tanks coming really close to one another in terms of DPS with WAR being slightly ahead. The difference is ~8%.

8% isn't insignificant, though. Honestly, it's probably less about the DPS that each can put out and more about the fact that WAR is the only OT with innate TP recovery options. That gives them more longevity, which is pretty important, I'd say. Add in the fact that WARs have naturally higher DPS, and there's really not a good reason to take one of the other two for OTing.

[Phoenicia]

Snip.

I really wish SE didn't give Equilibrium the TP recovery issue. It is starting this whole misleading thing about WAR's infinite TP.

WAR's TP issues NEVER EXISTED. Every 9 GCDs, WAR has 1 GCD with 0TP cost. Every 90s, WAR gets pacified for 2 GCDs after Berserk. The net result is your TP floating above 750 for most of the fight.

Using Equilibrium for TP also means you can't use it for healing.

8% when you're talking 1000 DPS on a dummy is 80 DPS. WAR actually pulls slightly more (like 1020~1050). In actual fights, WAR pulls more like 800~900. 8% of that is not significant. It's also nothing like the DPS disparity between the DPS classes. DRG pulls 1300+ on a dummy while BRD caps at 1100. That's 200 DPS and is close to 17%. That didn't prevent groups from filling 1 DPS spot with a BRD or MCH. And it didn't force groups to pick 4 melees or 3 melee and 1 BRD.

Back on point, there is NOTHING forcing groups to pick WAR as OT and nothing preventing them from letting PLD or DRK OT.

Just to show you how stupid the "hive mind" is, WAR MT / any OT is much higher raid-wide DPS than the opposite. And at no "cost" to defensiveness.

[Alahra]

I really wish SE didn't give Equilibrium the TP recovery issue. It is starting this whole misleading thing about WAR's infinite TP.

I never said that WARs had infinite TP, just that they had more longevity than DRK and PLD (especially more than DRK--Blood Weapon is a horrid TP sink).

Back on point, there is NOTHING forcing groups to pick WAR as OT and nothing preventing them from letting PLD or DRK OT.

Nothing's forcing it, no. But in progression, serious groups will seek out every advantage and edge they can get, and if WAR has advantages over the other two for OT, then they will be the preferred OT.

[Phoenicia]

I never said that WARs had infinite TP, just that they had more longevity than DRK and PLD (especially more than DRK--Blood Weapon is a horrid TP sink).



Nothing's forcing it, no. But in progression, serious groups will seek out every advantage and edge they can get, and if WAR has advantages over the other two for OT, then they will be the preferred OT.

Again, WAR didn't need Equilibrium for its TP.

And as I said, if people looked at every angle, they'd see that WAR MT / x OT is an advantage over sticking WAR in the OT spot. Not everything "serious groups" do is 100% optimal.

For your own group, just get a group of 8 players that can actually play and experiment with setups. Doesn't have to follow the whole "stick a WAR to OT and you're golden" because you aren't.

[Velox]

The same can be said for AST, SCH, and WHM. Astrologian is being left out now for not bringing robust enough heals to the party.

Stopped reading there. AST is being left out because of min-maxxers trying to push as much raid DPS as possible while retaining functionality. SCH never had robust heals and yet it was never WHM/WHM in 2.0. No, AST is overlooked because its UTILITY is lacking compared to SCH.

And there will ALWAYS be 1 class that's doing better than the others. That's a given in every MMO in history. Right now WAR and SCH have got it good. They will have it good until the next balance where X and Y will have it good. It repeats endlessly.

Perfect balance will never exist because perfect humans don't exist.

[Alahra]

Again, WAR didn't need Equilibrium for its TP.

I also never said they needed it. I think the WAR changes in HW are completely ludicrous. But the fact is that they *have* it, and it's going to factor in to the reasons people choose one class for OT over another.

Stopped reading there. AST is being left out because of min-maxxers trying to push as much raid DPS as possible while retaining functionality. SCH never had robust heals and yet it was never WHM/WHM in 2.0. No, AST is overlooked because its UTILITY is lacking compared to SCH.

That's over-simplifying the picture. AST is being left behind for a number of reasons. Their utility is weaker than SCH's, which is one. Their overall healing capability is lower than both SCH and WHM, which is another. The latter also causes raid DPS to be lower because both healers have to heal *more* (and DPS less). Additionally, AST is less capable in "emergency" situations than both SCH and WHM, and emergency situations are part of progression. About the only place AST is on par with the other healers is in its DPS capability in a vacuum (at least on single target)--they're about equal to SCH. But they lack the healing power and mana efficiency to DPS like SCH can in practice.