Homogenization and Simplicity in Tank Roles

[Marxam]

There's nothing wrong with simplicity but if you add homogenization to the mix then that's where problems start. It can get to the point where defensive cd's should just be put on Role Actions list to save on skill bloat since all of them are mostly the same and on the same cd timers, similar to Rampart. Here's an example of simplicity and homogenization using tank stances in the current game:

Simplicity:
PLD/GNB = +20% defense, 10% healing, enmity increased
WAR/DRK = +20% HP increase, 10% healing, enmity increased

Homogenization:
PLD/GNB/WAR/DRK = trait, stance only gives enmity

Tanks having 2 different stances is simple to understand but is enough to differentiate for casuals and can gives options to barrier healers. Homogenization is what we have now where you could technically put one tank stance in the Role Actions and it would still function the same, but that would be too obvious. The tank stances aren't stances but enmity buffs and nothing more.

[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.

[Mikey_R]

I based my post in the assumption that they would want them all to be oGCD. I am fully aware of how they all used to be....and how clunky it was as a Paladin.

Also, technically, Dark Knights didn't cost a GCD to deactivate, but you could only deactivate it once your GCD is off of cooldown, that was wonky. I also forget, but didn't Paladin's oaths cost MP in SB? (I know they did before), if so, that was even worse, not only are you delaying your whole rotation, MP was so tight, you really didn't want to be spending any of it needlessly.

The point still stands though. I don't see how their idea was 'simplified' and the current one is homogenised.

[aodhan_ofinnegain]

I based my post in the assumption that they would want them all to be oGCD. I am fully aware of how they all used to be....and how clunky it was as a Paladin.

Also, technically, Dark Knights didn't cost a GCD to deactivate, but you could only deactivate it once your GCD is off of cooldown, that was wonky. I also forget, but didn't Paladin's oaths cost MP in SB? (I know they did before), if so, that was even worse, not only are you delaying your whole rotation, MP was so tight, you really didn't want to be spending any of it needlessly.

The point still stands though. I don't see how their idea was 'simplified' and the current one is homogenised.

Yes Paladin's Shield Oath and Sword Oath both costed 600 MP plus GCD to use. It was 1200 MP under level 64 before the traited MP cost reduction.

[Leonus]

Not everyone wants to level every class to enjoy content. Everyone has to be equally viable in some form or fashion or the community will exclude a job because "it sucks". We have seen this time and time again.

[Bhearil]

Not everyone wants to level every class to enjoy content. Everyone has to be equally viable in some form or fashion or the community will exclude a job because "it sucks". We have seen this time and time again.

Still in those cases is because some jobs outperform others by far as it happened on FFXI where certain jobs were outright garbage on parties while others were a must have, But as long as the differences are not too great being exactly equal is not needed, Besides speedruns or "certain meters" factor almost no one is gonna care that one job deals a few % damage more than other as long as remains between reason

Theres a middle ground between having carbon copy jobs so they are equalized and having EX++ tier jobs performing against E- tier jobs

[Mikey_R]

And that is where the tanks are now. There isn't much difference in their performance from a DPS standpoint and they all have similar mitigation kits. They all play differently, their short cooldowns all operate differently, even their 'I'm not dying' buttons are different. Everything that needs to be the same is the same. If they need to homogonise some aspects of the tank role to ensure they have the basic kit, then so be it, however, that doesn't mean all tanks are the same.

[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.

[Mikey_R]

While your shield may be bigger, you still take more damage at base, so it doesn't affect you except in the niche circumstances where attacks do a fixed amount of damage. I even done the math to double check for myself (20% damage reduction compared to +25% extra HP and healing, you need +25% healing if you want them both to feel the same) and irregardless if whether it was a shield based on the amount healed or a shield based on max HP (I actually made a spreadsheet to test this and it is the case).

So really, the only benefit is the flavour of the stance. They are both the same mechanically speaking, so you can essentially call them the same stance. There is no simplicity there, just the same thing in a different coat of paint.

Going away from tanks for a second and talk about healers. I will admit, I don't know what a healers mindeset is in high end raids, so I am speculating. I know healers know roughly how much their heals heal for. If they see tanks with differring HP amounts, would they then have to learn 2 different values for their heals and swap between them when the tanks happen to swap? I don't know how much of an issue this is, if it is even an issue at all. If it is an issue, then really you want consistency across the board.