Does that standard explicitly not include more than one tank, or are we just waxing generalities? What's the alternative? Should I give up on the idea of them being balanced? If you mean that we should be looking less at the cruxes of the fight and more about how the different jobs handle the 'white numbers' or the more arbitrary considerations of the fight, I can understand that, but... what you're saying here... doesn't point anywhere.
Noting a second method is not the same as demonizing the first. I find two methods less restrictive than just one. I've been suggesting further parity for PLD in terms of dps and less niched mitigation since 3.0... I just think it may also take adjustments on to the raid environment itself, and would have preferred that not just be by reversing the niched situation (e.g. all of Thordan's tankbusters are physical, the dps requirements are relatively lenient aside from wanting to clear the hell out of last phase, most of the intensive dps phases do not simultaneously involve tanking, and there's no AoE dps to be done). Because, for better or worse, tank value comes in context. Just as a tank with zero AoE damage (apart from CoS) loses nothing in a fight without AoEs, a tank with off-healing capabilities gains nothing if there's no point at which he can use it significantly.And why are we going back to demonizing performance parity? Especially when the lack of performance parity is one of the main culprits behind the problems we're currently seeing (encounter design being another)?
Never said otherwise. I have no issue with PLD doing the same dps as WAR and DRK, but let's face it. WAR and DRK don't even do the "same" damage. Depending on the very particular situation, one will come out ahead of the other. Now, my personal preference (though other outcomes will not bother me) is that PLD would be to tanks much like NIN is to DPS, so to speak, but mostly because I feel like this expands the options available to the tank role, assuming first that each tank has a mostly viable toolset, and is wholly viable in the context of each encounter. I like options.Class identity can still come from mechanics, abilities and aesthetics while still remaining equal to other members of the roster in performance. Are you really that bothered by WAR and DRK dealing the same damage as a PLD?
Here we'll have to disagree to some extent. I think it is a bad thing, albeit just barely. If you can go an entire fight without using an ability, that's fine. To go an entire fight without having reason to use an ability, is not fine. Granted, this differs depending on the resource cost (be it a CD or mana requirements), but for an ability to be left entirely for "oh shit" moments is like saying that a Bard is balanced against another dps when it has no benefit for its songs unless things go horribly, horribly wrong (luckily Rain of Death makes that rare, since you can always squeeze out more healer dps with Foes even without caster dps) - oh except that, for PLD, it most likely won't go off in time... /shrug.Which is not a bad thing. The utility PLD was given is not the type that is or should be needed all the time. This is why I facepalm at the people who complain about Clemency not being a mandatory ability in the rotation (it's situational off-healing, emphasis on situational) and those that expect Divine Veil to be up all the time, every time (because expecting to do so would be like expecting this or this to be used every time it's up instead of during oh-shit moments).
I've solo-healed the MT through the A4N's 3x Perpetual Ray spam many a time since it lost its weekly lockout while my healers were killing themselves with Nist or bombs or just generally being headless. It's great, relatively speaking, when it's the only healing output your party has. Divine Veil is great when you would have all died by 8% health. The problem is that it depends on either cutting edge progression or failure. It's niched, but not in a way that typically adds options to the encounter. Instead, it simply devalues PLD in most situations, and leaves them (if balanced in all other regards) equal in few. Slight adjustments, however, I feel could change that, leaving it wholly situational, but also much more usable.