Balance, Homogenisation and Encounter Design: The Problem.

[Shurrikhan]

The problem is that it then makes the playerbase do the homogenizing. If you want to raid in GW2/ESO, and you want to be healer, but you're not using X class, Y build or Z gear? You're not getting in. Homogenization will happen one way or the other. Either the devs take a hand in this to limit it so most classes can be taken without fuss, or they don't and then the playerbase causes the fuss and the classes are not wanted or won't be allowed into the content, punishing a small subset of players just for playing their class a specific way, homogenizing everybody into specific builds.

Except there is no such need when jobs are actually balanced decently.

"Taking a hand" only necessarily equates to balancing, not to homogenizing. Replace homogenization with any other action we'd normally rather avoid. Should the law "take a hand" in theft to ensure there's nothing left for the people to steal (thereby "ending theft")? That's effectively the argument you're using here: by providing the worst outcome automatically, we won't feel bad about making things worst for ourselves.

You're conflating homogeneity and balance. Again. You can have balance without homogenization. Is it as easy? No. But should we submit to having only 4 classes in the game -- 1 for each Role -- just because the devs want the easiest means of balancing? No.

[RyuDragnier]

Except there is no such need when jobs are actually balanced decently.

Nothing is ever balanced decently when it comes to raiding. There will always be one move, one skill, one setup, that will be greater than the others. Weaken it, and another will suddenly become better. It's a neverending cycle, you cannot stop the playerbase from creating its own meta, you'll only be playing Whack-A-Mole. Or you do what SE is doing, and homogenize them to begin with, and get things just balanced enough to where people don't care if you bring X or Y class (like how it is currently with tanks).

You're conflating homogeneity and balance. Again. You can have balance without homogenization. Is it as easy? No. But should we submit to having only 4 classes in the game -- 1 for each Role -- just because the devs want the easiest means of balancing? No.

They stand in tandem, quite a bit. Look at GW2 and ESO, classes are not homogenized, and you have the problem with the playerbase homogenizing the setups to do things. It's wildly unbalanced and will never be balanced. Look at the tanks right now in FF14. They're homogenized quite a bit, but they're balanced enough to where nobody is wanting one job more than the others.

[Shurrikhan]

Nothing is ever balanced decently when it comes to raiding. There will always be one move, one skill, one setup, that will be greater than the others. Weaken it, and another will suddenly become better. It's a neverending cycle, you cannot stop the playerbase from creating its own meta, you'll only be playing Whack-A-Mole. Or you do what SE is doing, and homogenize them to begin with, and get things just balanced enough to where people don't care if you bring X or Y class (like how it is currently with tanks).

A rotation between 4 choices according to some prioritized capacity by which one ends up faintly superior for a given fight >>>> only ever having 1 choice, period.

Otherwise, what's your complaint? Even in incredible imbalance you have as many choices as you have under complete homogeneity.

Your "solution" to the worst thing that could happen (one choice) is to enforce... the worst that could happen (one choice).

They didn't need to homogenize to reach balance. All but the tanks were MORE balanced previously, despite LESS homogenization.

[Quri]

They stand in tandem, quite a bit. Look at GW2 and ESO, classes are not homogenized, and you have the problem with the playerbase homogenizing the setups to do things. It's wildly unbalanced and will never be balanced. Look at the tanks right now in FF14. They're homogenized quite a bit, but they're balanced enough to where nobody is wanting one job more than the others.

Tanks had the same mitigation kit since 2.0. Tanks are upset now because DRK is WAR right now. DRK also lost their aoe synergy. Three of the skills are sentinel cloned, despite the fact they could have differentiate them in a similar way to WAR. Infuriate should had a trait that also gives FC and Decimate (chaos version including) inner beast heal and 20% dog reduction(FC/IC) and steel cyclone heal per hit (Decimate/ CC).

PLD remains to be the most popular tank because not only did it not change, but instead skills were added to improve from before. GNB and PLD are the two popular tanks and they're not clones. Infact tank players don't want another Resquiat clone. Inner release and Delirium being a Resquiat clone is frustrating, and while I personally was fine with Inner Release being a Resquiat clone, because WAR still different from SB PLD and DRK.

The changes made in ShB for tank went a step to far. Two classes should not be cloned of each other. Role skills are for giving the tanks a basic kit they all have. Three of the tanks should not have the same skill. Vengeance is a spike, so DRK should have mana regen on hit. PLD is 40% an GNB gets a HoT, increase duration for 15 seconds for all of them and boosts Vengeance potency a bit.

Besides those changes I think the biggest issue for tanks is having DRK be revamped again. Three changes and it's apparent Square has no idea what the identity for DRK is.