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

[Aurelius2625]

Some people have this strange idea that it's actually good to have two "main tanks" and two "off tanks", but, this would be DEFCON 1 for tanking for several reasons.

First, one tank would have the lion's share of aggro generation moves, as they'd be the "Dedicated main tank class", while this would impede several things. First, swaps would be completely ruined by this, as the main tank class would be far superior at generating aggro, which would lead them to constantly ride the "dedicated OT" for threat. If the "Main Tank" dies, then how does the OT, with less aggro resources (as they are the OFF tank, remember?) pick up from where they left off? All of that threat disappears and you get into hate issues.

Secondly, the dedicated "Main Tank" would have MORE mitigation options, as they are the MAIN tank, right? What does that leave the off tank? If fights are balanced around the "Main tank" holding the boss more, then obviously there are going to be more tank busters. If the main tank dies, how does the Off tank pick up the slack with less defensives, and more offensives, naturally (I mean, how else would it be?).

Thirdly, we would just see a REPEAT of the Tanks using damage accessories because they can thing, which would lead to comps of two "off tanks" tanking instances to pump out as much damage as possible, breaking the entire point of the "2 MT 2 OT" thing. I honestly don't know if that's the way they play on JP, where there's a "dedicated MT", Yoshi P was (perhaps it's just rumors) reported to have said that the WAR needs more competition as OT, which is why we are getting GUN.... like what? On NA, WAR is almost always the MT by default because it pulls, and pugs are too lazy to do swaps most of the time unless it's forced. This would only lead to the "MT" tanks being shunned for the higher dps "OT's". It happened with i270 accessories.

Tanks are going to optimize and gravitate to the most damage possible, so these three things when taken into consideration, are only going to get far, far worse if the 2 MT 2 OT thing is implemented.

I honestly hope it was just a joke.

Both tanks should have AT MINIMUM:

Excellent ways to pull the boss (achieve this in different ways if you want to be unique, NO TANK should NOT be AS effective at pulling as the others... Full. STOP.)/Snap aggro

A FULL suite of mitigation, how this is achieved is up to the devs to make it creative, but no tank should be the "welp, guess I have nothing" tank as for as mitigation goes.

The ability to achieve similar DPS without a clear winner (WAR).

Unique utility for all tanks, how this is achieved, can be unique and rewarding to each tank complimenting a party in different ways. Currently, DRK is the tank that you play because you WANT to, not because it's good. PLD offers tons of utility, WAR has shake and great DPS, DRK is just...there.

[Phoenicia]

Liked for the title alone.. Read through it and I want to like again. Adding my two cents here:

I honestly think the devs don't play their game nor do they see how the players do it. So far, with very few exceptions like O11s, the game feels like there is NO MT and OT in the fight design because both share almost equal tanking burden. MT is only the tank that pulls. Heck, Yoshi-P seems to have been thinking DRK and PLD are "main tanks" while WAR is "off-tank" or "sub-tank" as the JP community calls it since HW.

Things don't even have to go as far as "if MT dies" for things to go bad. Going with the current encounter design, if the "MT" is meant to have better mitigation as it would hold the boss for longer periods, OTs will get shafted as they are going to be tanking as long as the MT is.

If OT is meant to be better equipped to deal damage (not necessarily more) and "dance" between offense and defense, then we'll have WAR and WAR v0.2 where we end up with 2 tanks that EXCEL at both, main tanking and off-tanking. And now instead of 1 tank being always left out, we'll have 2 tanks left out, both happen to be in "MT" role.

Looking at damage patterns even, busters are the only means of damage that needs to be mitigated and tank swaps being a thing, mitigation is not a big issue, too much mitigation is a thing and as such MTs are not needed. Taking OTs would just be always the better option.

[Lyth]

I'd like more information on what the devs are thinking of when they say "MT" and "OT". 2.x era's PLD and WAR obviously isn't the way to go. Because Cover on PLD was specifically cited as an example, I'd be more inclined to think that "OTs" here will have support skills to redirect damage, bolster defenses, and possibly even enhance enmity generation. But a lot is going to hinge on how an "OT/OT" comp works out.

I suspect that their workaround to the damage issue is simply to widen the gulf between tank damage output and dps damage output, judging from previous Q+As.

If they go this route, which does seem dubious at best, they should at least commit hard to it and subdivide tanks into separate "Main Tank" and "Off Tank" roles on the job list.

"Why did you add two more tanks in 6.0?"
"Well, there are only two main tanks and two off tanks, so they were the lowest represented roles."

[Lambdafish]

Obviously all tanks will be able to MT in some capacity. The example used is PLD. PLD is an OT and is seen by the community as an OT due to the way stances work and because it has a lower enmity generation on pull (also because of party support like cover, intervention and clemency). Having said that, PLD can MT if it needs to, it just isn't as good as having a DRK or WAR in that slots. I highly expect GUN to be the same, so all 4 tanks can do both, but they either excel at MT or OT.

Also, if OT tanks couldn't MT, the Devs would have to remove tank swaps from the game, consider that.

[Burningskull]

Obviously all tanks will be able to MT in some capacity. The example used is PLD. PLD is an OT and is seen by the community as an OT due to the way stances work and because it has a lower enmity generation on pull (also because of party support like cover, intervention and clemency). Having said that, PLD can MT if it needs to, it just isn't as good as having a DRK or WAR in that slots. I highly expect GUN to be the same, so all 4 tanks can do both, but they either excel at MT or OT.

Also, if OT tanks couldn't MT, the Devs would have to remove tank swaps from the game, consider that.

What is this PLD has lower enmity generation thing? Is it really something like Tomahawk does 5 points of enmity while Shield Lob only does 2? (I'm exaggerating but generally curious.)

[KDSilver]

What is this PLD has lower enmity generation thing? Is it really something like Tomahawk does 5 points of enmity while Shield Lob only does 2? (I'm exaggerating but generally curious.)

Unchained removes the damage penalty from tank stance.
This alone already makes Warrior's enmity generation higher because it naturally deals more damage.
+ Equilibrium, which is a strong self-heal, and healing generate enmity as well (and it's oGCD).
Slightly higher potencies, very spiky burst even under Delivrance (plus its passive +5% damage).

[Barraind]

I think it has fantastic potential.

Your main tank doesnt need to have more cooldowns, because you can have paladin cover and gunbreaker reskinned cover count as one in most situations (we already default paladin to OT in 99% of situations because of this), add in intervention and a new skill that shares damage with another target and you dont have to add a single cooldown to the main tank types for them to have more mitigation.

For tank swaps, you can still have a shirk like effect, and/or you bake in stronger threat generation to tank stances when they dont have threat.


Give me a few minutes and I'll put up my "how I would streamline tanks for 5.0" ideas.

What is this PLD has lower enmity generation thing? Is it really something like Tomahawk does 5 points of enmity while Shield Lob only does 2? (I'm exaggerating but generally curious.)

Tank stance tomahawk into equilibrium on pull is absolutely bonkers threat compared to anything paladin can hope to accomplish in 1 gcd.

[Khalithar]

A very long time ago World of Warcraft designed around the idea of a main tank (Warrior) and off tank (Paladin) and they eventually learned that such a design is untenable. However, I do want to add that (in the current savage mode content of which I’ve cleared everything) you can clear with any tank combination.

But as things stand in the current meta, the warrior MT and Paladin OT just have way too much synergy with each other including the way their cooldowns line up with certain boss mechanics. I believe that is the situation that needs to be addressed first if they want to make the tanks more balanced.

[shao32]

i think all is taking this whole MT/OT thing to a unnecesary extreme, i highly doubt they are going to limit any tank in terms of emity generation and mitigation since they want every tank being aviabe on all content.

no, i expect when they reffer to MT and OT they will add some kind of support or sinergy that will make us want to have a "MT" and a "OT" in the party always, and if we have 2 "MT" or 2 "OT" it will be just less optimal like when you go to a duty finder and get 2 WHM, looking it at this way every tank will pull the same performance but will be separate in 2 categories making it far easy to balance and without need to sacrifice any current combat desing like tank swaps in the process.

thats how i understand it and to be honest its a smart move to balance tanks in couples instead of having to dealt with the nightmare to balance 1 against 3 all the time.

edit: the acc stuff dont have to be true at all if tanks finally get a dedicate main stat for himself this expansion killing finally the need of get crafted acc with str melds.

[Phoenicia]

People are missing the point, it isn't whither it works or not, or if SE can make it interesting. It is what Yoshi-P and the dev team consider as "MT" or "OT". And the fact that most fights (about 80%) have EQUAL TANKING BURDEN on both tanks that are in the fight where they both take similar amounts of damage, and in some cases OT takes more.

Yoshi-P has categorized PLD as "MT" since ARR, and ironically called it the "defensive" tank in Heavensward when even its defensive toolkit was utter garbage in comparison to DRK/WAR against what was thrown at us in Alexander Savage. Yoshi and his team also considered DRK to be "OT". I don't remember the last time I've seen an "OT" DRK in a PLD/DRK comp (even in HW).

So if the dev team claims MT is: PLD > DRK > WAR but the community gives the MT priority the exact opposite way around, then it mean either the community are playing the game wrong (and I highly doubt that) or the dev team really does not play the game they make nor do they thinking what they are putting in it through.

So what makes an "MT" in SE's opinion? Is it snap aggro? Or did they think "snapping" enmity is a good toolkit to pick up adds? If that's what they think, then why has WAR been the ONLY tank that "gained" DPS from its enmity combo in ARR and HW?

Or is the "MT" the tank that has a lot of reactionary abilities to being hit? What's the point of those "reaction" attacks if half the bosses dealt damage you can't block/parry and the other half you're just unfit to tank because your defensive kit can't handle it as well as the other tanks?

Or is "MT" the tank with long immunity? If so, why is the CD on it so long(bad)?

You can't really make a "MT" be more suitable to stay alive as then you'll just shaft the other tanks for having the tank tag but not being able to tank everything. As long as you carry the tank tag you should be able to, you know, TANK everything in the game. Otherwise create a new role and call it DPS-Tank where they can queue as DPS for the fights they are unfit to completely tank. If, by design, you can't make a tank that can't tank everything and call it "OT", what makes an OT?

Is it their ability to deal more DPS? But if this tank that, by definition, should be able to tank everything and still deal more DPS, you just take in 2 OTs.

If "OT" is meant to have superior MT support role (like how PLD now is), you'll just take 2 OTs and have them support and beef up each other. Remember how early SB DRK/PLD was so favored because they can Intervene and TBN each other on pretty much anything that hurts more than an Auto-attack? Yeah, pretty much. Which brings me to the following post:

A very long time ago World of Warcraft designed around the idea of a main tank (Warrior) and off tank (Paladin) and they eventually learned that such a design is untenable. However, I do want to add that (in the current savage mode content of which I’ve cleared everything) you can clear with any tank combination.

But as things stand in the current meta, the warrior MT and Paladin OT just have way too much synergy with each other including the way their cooldowns line up with certain boss mechanics. I believe that is the situation that needs to be addressed first if they want to make the tanks more balanced.

I don't see how WAR/PLD has any more synergy than DRK/PLD as far as MT/OT are concerned. If anything, tank mitigation goes up in a DRK/PLD composition. The only 'advantage' WAR/PLD has over the other is LB optimization (a.k.a. LB cheese) through shielding. I guess there's slashing but who's mad enough to not take a ninja if they are optimizing far enough into LB generation?
-----------------

So historically speaking, whichever tank has been considered "MT" by the dev team has been the tank that's least favored in the meta. The whole "2 MT and 2 OT" deal is bound to fail. Specially in a game that has a VERY thin line to what OT and MT roles are in encounter design.

The short of it is: If OTs can't tank, why take them in the first place, just take 2 MTs and have an easy cruise on whichever tank is currently MTing. If OTs deal more damage and CAN tank, take 2 OTs and end the fight a lot faster.