Homogenization and Simplicity in Tank Roles

[Mikey_R]

The problem there is, +20% defence (I will assume damage reduction is meant) is not the same as +20% HP, then only having +10% healing on the extra HP makes them harder to heal. You could theoretically make them the same effective mitigation but, if they act the same to heal, then why bother? Plus, swapping on to tank stance is much more beneficial for the +20% mitigation as you get the benefit right away as opposed to having to heal the +HP tank to gain the benefit of the extra HP.

So, whilst you can make them statistically the same in regards to effective tanking, one has an advantage over the other. Would it cause you to take the PLD/GNB over the WAR/DRK? probably not, however, it could annoy a few healers having to heal them up as well as the MT for tank swaps. So, why make them different? All because of flavour?

I also fail to see how one is simplicity and one is homogenisation. They both do the same things (ignoring the downsides) and so it is effectively no different. You haven't 'simplified' anything, just made it look different.

[KatsuraJun]

The problem there is, +20% defence (I will assume damage reduction is meant) is not the same as +20% HP, then only having +10% healing on the extra HP makes them harder to heal. You could theoretically make them the same effective mitigation but, if they act the same to heal, then why bother? Plus, swapping on to tank stance is much more beneficial for the +20% mitigation as you get the benefit right away as opposed to having to heal the +HP tank to gain the benefit of the extra HP.

So, whilst you can make them statistically the same in regards to effective tanking, one has an advantage over the other. Would it cause you to take the PLD/GNB over the WAR/DRK? probably not, however, it could annoy a few healers having to heal them up as well as the MT for tank swaps. So, why make them different? All because of flavour?

I also fail to see how one is simplicity and one is homogenisation. They both do the same things (ignoring the downsides) and so it is effectively no different. You haven't 'simplified' anything, just made it look different.

Eh, in practice they were differentiated by the cost associated with activating and deactivating them VS their effect. It was more complex than what the other poster described. Because of this,

WAR's had the least immediate benefit, but cost 0 GCDs and resources to activate+decativate.
DRK's gave you immediate 20% mitigation, but cost 1 GCD to activate+deactivate and a chunk of MP you could have used for Dark Arts.
PLD gave you immediate 20% mitigation, cost 2 GCDs to activate+deactivate but no resources that they actually used at the time

That's why DRK's and PLD's provided more "immediate" benefit. But WAR's ability to smoothly transition into Defiance and fire off a bunch of Inner Beasts at the time, meant it was actually the best one, both as an aggro opener tool and as a prog panic button. Followed by Grit, since it cost nothing to deactivate - putting it on par with Defiance for the purposes of MT aggro openers (though WAR could generate a lot more immediate aggro than DRK). And the worst was Shield Oath for how badly it disrupted you no matter how you tried to use it. That is to say, they actually were quite different at the time, though their differences were certainly were part of the reason why PLD was so bad in HW.

Was it a good thing? Bad thing? Depends on who you ask, I suppose.

[Marxam]

The problem there is, +20% defence (I will assume damage reduction is meant) is not the same as +20% HP, then only having +10% healing on the extra HP makes them harder to heal. You could theoretically make them the same effective mitigation but, if they act the same to heal, then why bother? Plus, swapping on to tank stance is much more beneficial for the +20% mitigation as you get the benefit right away as opposed to having to heal the +HP tank to gain the benefit of the extra HP.

So, whilst you can make them statistically the same in regards to effective tanking, one has an advantage over the other. Would it cause you to take the PLD/GNB over the WAR/DRK? probably not, however, it could annoy a few healers having to heal them up as well as the MT for tank swaps. So, why make them different? All because of flavour?

I also fail to see how one is simplicity and one is homogenisation. They both do the same things (ignoring the downsides) and so it is effectively no different. You haven't 'simplified' anything, just made it look different.

Originally Defiance was 25% HP up and 20% healing but with the stat squish I think we can go back the ARR Defiance but w/o the damage penalty. I was referring to simplifying from 4.0 where each tank had a different stance. Hypothetically, if they followed that pattern and gave GNB a separate stance that would be four different tank stances. This basically simplifies them into categories like the healers have pure and barrier.

You are right in that straight defense will always come up slightly ahead but if they balance it right it keeps the party comp varied because the higher HP always means bigger shields and could mean the difference between saving your LB3 for a tank or DPS. I just provided examples but the idea is to split the tanks into flat defense or high HP instead of the one trait fits all that we have currently. It provides just enough difference for it to feel unique and there's nothing simpler than seeing a tank with big HP or big defense.