Because it would be the first time that the devs' intent would not translate to reality, right?Quote:
Originally Posted by Carighan
Now to put some more fuel into the discussion... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-2R1sHOWvQU
-
05-05-2026, 06:51 PMMukuku
-
05-05-2026, 06:59 PMCarighan
Really?
Reply to post about actual dev information. Link to something by Xeno.
Or do you mean to imply that because Xeno, someone whose job it is to generate clicks for money, says something, there's a solid reason that it's inherently wrong? And hence there isn't really problem, only a problem with the discussion around it (since he can exploit it for money)? -
05-05-2026, 07:04 PMMukukuAre you arguing that dev's intent never missed the mark in the past? OK thank you for getting back to reality.Quote:
Originally Posted by Carighan
About the video, you might not like the messenger, but that doesn't mean the message is wrong. -
05-05-2026, 07:09 PMCarighan
No the message might be correct, but not when delivered by Xeno. The idea that the work should be judged separately from the author is long discredited and no longer holds up, and Xeno is a very good example of that. Any opinion can become useless just by him delivering it, because you never know whether it actually hints at a real issue, or is just what sells the most clicks and hence makes the most income to somebody for whom it is their job to do exactly that. You have to re-evaluate that for every single line stated in every single video.
More generally, it's a business to Xeno. Not an opinion. If you think mass media say too much just to make money, that's what any and all influencers are, even habitually (that is, non-intentionally). -
05-05-2026, 07:25 PMMukukuThat's a ridiculous argument. Regardless of his intent, the arguments should be addressed by their merits. Even if he's posting arguments with the goal of making money, that would not change whether the arguments have merit or not one bit.Quote:
Originally Posted by Carighan
What you are doing is textbook ad hominem: you are attacking the character or motive of the speaker instead of addressing the substance of the arguments presented.
You were clearly and IMHO pretty callously trying to dismiss other players' concerns. While I appreciate the devs expressing the intent, there are good reasons players would still be concerned even after hearing that statement.Quote:
Originally Posted by Carighan
IMHO there should be more respect for other players' concerns, no matter how off-mark one might think they are.
I will tone down the discussion on my side from now on as I don't like where this is heading. -
05-05-2026, 08:21 PMCarighan
No I am in fact addressing the substance of your argument, that is, linking to something Xeno said. Xeno's comments are inherently untrustworthy and not based on the content of what he is saying (it's a business, he says what drives clicks), hence as an argument for you to make, it's not a good argument.
You can make the argument you think Xeno is making (which he is not, even if the words are identical, he is advocating to give him ad income) yourself, and it might have merit. I agree that if I were critiqueing Xeno, it'd be an ad hominem. But he's not the one I'm replying to.
Much like the original worry was that one of the two roles would naturally be excluded is a valid argument to make as far as worrying about this split goes, to which an easy counter would be that both within FFXIV and within other MMORPGs we got counterexamples to this. We got examples for it, too, but they also apply to the current state of FFXIV (pre-evolved), meaning they're not in fact a result of such a split into subroles, they're based on something inherent in a non-split role, too (and hence, again, not a good argument to make in this context of the evolved subrole split). Context matters. A lot. Be it who speaks an argument lest it by hypocritical or vain or inherently insulting to the contextual audience, be it in whether an argument even applies specifically to the situation it is used on.
The bigger worry here is more general anyways I feel, and is the same reason why right now we already use certain classes more as MT or OT in high end pre-formed parties: Balance is never quite perfect, and any imbalance will be exploited by some players. Evolved being a tabula rasa for class design will naturally make balance worse (there's almost no way this cannot happen, this is just a given), and hence will augment this effect. But note that this has nothing to do with the MT/OT split. Whether Gunbreaker for example will not tank a boss because they're explicitly not meant to or whether they just are 21% less durable due to imbalance and hence groups want them to be in the blue DPS slot... that's irrelevant to the underlying worry. Which is a very real worry, and I share that in the opposite direction as someone who enjoys Paladin as a supportive tank which naturally means not being the tank but being blue DPS instead is an easier fit (and you'll note that right now, PLD serves best in that (sub-)role, not as the actual MT. In the live game. Right now!). -
05-05-2026, 08:30 PMCarighan
I would further expand upon the general "I don't want to excluded"-worry that we have awfully little indication that this happens. It's not unheard of, of course. But if we look at the DPS forums, at plenty patches parts of the community - most recently Summoners - were certain PF parties will block summoners on their caster slots.
And while I only have personal experience for the Light DC (and indirectly Chaos, because let's face it their raiding population is on Light :'( ), this did not happen. As expected it wouldn't, because that's not how PF parties think. Their biggest worry is not "Oh damn we got a Summoner as our caster, we're doomed!", the worry of a PF part is "Can this please finally fiiiiiilll :/". They'd be making their principal problem worse by excluding specific jobs, more so because we know that for the third expansion in a row now your class is always overtuned for the content you're facing. Even if you are at the very bottom of imbalance, you are still overtuned for the content. Hence suboptimal play on the worst job easily gets it done, too. Is it easier on a more overperforming job? Of course, you can make more personal mistakes and so can others. But it doesn't outweight getting 10 more pulls in, which you can do if the group just fills.
A different perspective is high-end static groups. But here, a different argument can be made: These groups also do not care, but for them they don't care about the specific imbalance, they inherently exclude all jobs except ~8. Their players are somewhat expected to be flexible, and if you are high-end enough you'll have everything levelled anyways and be reasonably competent regardless. So unless top-end performance no longer matters, you'll want to bring the single most overtuned class at any given time even just for personal reasons, and you don't truly care which one it is so long as the boss is dead in record-time.
To translate this back into tank worries: PF groups won't exclude tanks because they just want the group to fill. I heavily suspect that unless SQEX forces it, PF groups will just have two slots for either MT or OT. If the performance is close enough (as per 4man dungeons and their explanation during the fanfest), PFs want to fill, not hyperoptimize. Meanwhile pro-groups exclude all but two tanks anyways, whether they are MT or OT is of no regard to them. Exclusivity is in hteir nature. -
05-05-2026, 09:51 PMSalamanderIX
All these comments about various things of evolved being a bad idea because "PF will be toxic about it" don't fly with me. They shouldn't be making decisions based on bad behavior which is against the TOS and can get people suspended.
If people want to be elitist about MT/OT or reborn/evolved mode, they are going to do it at their peril. But those kind of people will always find something to be toxic about, like banning Machnist from their parties. -
05-06-2026, 07:48 PMTerhixOn his own stream his own friends explain to him that, just as barrier healers have shields that don't stack, whatever they do with OTs (debuffs or raid mits) won't stack with another OT, because duh obviously, and his only response is "I guess I just don't have faith". He doesn't have an argument on why the split is bad beyond being a doomer about the game, but he also said that if they get it right "we will be celebrating", almost as if it's a good idea.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mukuku
-
05-06-2026, 08:52 PMCarighan
Xeno not having faith is the least of Xeno's problems. xD
I sometimes feel that guy and how many watch him is half the issues with modern FFXIV community we see. >.> -
05-06-2026, 09:49 PMMikey_RFar from it, we just need more information about how the jobs play before making unfounded requests of the dev team, for example, knowing whether Intervention can proc the counter attacks. We do not need a full tooltip for that, but we do need more than we currently do. Once we know, we can then provide feedback and lest you worry, if it doesn't, I will be there with most other tanks saying it probably should.Quote:
Originally Posted by BabyYoda
But that is the thing, we do not know. Will an MT get no benefit by not tanking? No idea. OT, No idea, how is the community going to act? No idea. Is it going to feel worse to play? Well, that is subjective.Quote:
Originally Posted by BabyYoda
The point in feedback is, there is no ifs. If they reveal that MTs lose access to counter attacks by not being attacked, you can feedback that it is not a good design decision as you lose value. You identify the issue, explain why it is an issue using the facts available and then if you so desire, provide a way to potentially change the system, in this case, still allowing the MT to counter attacks, even if they aren't tanking the boss.
Request.Quote:
Originally Posted by BabyYoda
To make an anecdote. If you are designing a new system, and you pitch your idea to a room full of people. This system does 2 things, at the moment, you are really only ready to give a glimpse of 1 thing, but you give a short rundown of what the 2nd thing does.
If someone says they think the system is looking good, based on what we have been shown, that is feedback, if they say, can it do X, Y, Z, that is asking for more information, if you pipe up and say, I think there could potentially be some issues based on how I think it is going to work, that, again, is not feedback, that is again, a request for more information. Which is what I have been saying to you the whole time.
This is honestly a lot of reason why I do push back against some people. Most of the time it is trying to get people to think what the causes and issues are. 'All jobs play the same' was a common moniker, but it doesn't actually say what the issue was. When you actually dug down, it was the 2 minute raid buffs forcing every job to fit that mould. But the original statement gives a completely different meaning to what the actual issue is.
So, lets not confuse feedback with general commentary, requests or queries. If you want some actual feedback, I made this post in my topic about what we had seen at the dev panel. The first part is about the Paladin rotation and how we are going to be using the filler combo 3-4 times on average per Imperator use and how that is going to get repetitive. I even considered whether the counter only came from Holy Sheltron or all blocking. The second half of the same post is then a concern I had about AoE damage. Spamming Shield Bash and getting Imperator every 40 seconds isn't going to be fun, not to mention no Expiacion procs. I did also speculate on how they could do AoE, but ultimately, it wasn't feedback as there wasn't enough information to go off off.
However, it is also worth noting that every single one of our current 21 jobs has been implemented in the game as of February, with mechanical tweaks needed. If you were hoping to change direction before they had implemented the jobs, you are a couple of months too late. We do not know what they have done, we do not know how they have balanced things, all we can do is wait and see and provide proper feedback on what we do see. -
05-06-2026, 09:56 PMCarighanThat's an element I had not considered but you make a good point, MMORPG expansions are on a 1-2 years lead time for any individual element usually (you start working on the next expansion either before or just as you deliver the current one).Quote:
Originally Posted by Mikey_R
Meaning that yes, of course, if they want to release Evercold's reworked classes next january, they gotta have finished them ~this january or so. -
05-06-2026, 10:20 PMBabyYodaI think this discussion is turning into a vocabulary lesson instead of a design discussion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mikey_R
You keep trying to separate “feedback,” “concern,” “request,” and “query” as if changing the label somehow changes the substance.
It does not.
If players respond to an officially shown direction and say, “This could create a problem, please avoid that outcome,” that is feedback. You can call it a concern, a request, or risk analysis if that makes you feel better, but the function is the same.
The strange part is that your standard only seems to become strict when the concern is about MT/OT restrictions.
You said Paladin using filler combo 3-4 times between Imperator may become repetitive. That is a concern based on partial information.
You also said AoE may become boring if it becomes Shield Bash spam with Imperator every 40 seconds. That is also a concern based on partial information.
I think those are valid points.
But by your own definition, are they “not feedback” because we do not have the full final kit yet?
Or does this strict definition only apply when someone else is raising concerns?
You say feedback needs factual information. Good. We have factual information:
SE officially used MT and OT labels.
SE officially presented them as different tank directions.
SE showed Paladin as the MT example.
SE stated this split is part of the upcoming design.
You yourself said MT/OT is coming regardless.
That is enough factual information to give directional feedback.
No one is claiming to know every tooltip, potency, or final encounter design. That is not the point. The feedback is about the risks created by the terminology and direction shown.
And yes, I use “if” statements because that is how risk feedback works.
“If this system rewards tanks only inside their assigned label, it may become restrictive.”
“If Party Finder treats those labels as fixed expectations, it may create friction.”
“If a tank loses value outside its label, it may feel worse to play flexibly.”
This is not pretending to know the final design. This is identifying obvious risks before they become baked into the system.
Also, saying all jobs have already been implemented does not make feedback less important. It makes it more important. If only mechanical tweaks remain, then now is exactly when these concerns should be raised.
Waiting until everything is finalized is not “proper feedback.” It is just late feedback.
So call it concern, request, query, risk analysis, or whatever category makes the spreadsheet look cleaner.
The substance is still the same:
Do not make MT/OT restrictive.
Do not make tanks lose value outside their assigned label.
Do not let terminology become Party Finder policing.
Do not make tank identity come from fixed labels instead of gameplay depth.
If SE already plans to avoid these problems, great. Then this feedback supports that direction.
If not, then this is exactly the kind of feedback that should be said now.
That is not speculation replacing facts.
That is feedback based on the facts currently available. -
05-07-2026, 04:40 AMLythThis video makes valid points, most of which is probably just common sense for someone who has played the game and focused on tanking for 10+ years, as in his case.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mukuku
There's actually a bit more to the story on strength accessories. In ARR and Heavensward, tanks prioritized STR over VIT by either using accessories designed for melee DPS or by using STR materia pentamelds. To convince tanks to boost their HP, the dev team initially played around with VIT as a damage stat in late Heavensward, before deciding to force tanks into it by role locking them into VIT accessories without any STR on Stormblood's release. They felt that by doing so, tanks would then focus on 'tanking' as opposed to doing damage.
When players complained about the change, they were given buffs to enmity instead and the complaints were sidestepped as being 'about enmity' rather than 'damage'. After all, this is how they intended players to play the game now. Players then went back to their i270 STR accessories from the Alexander raid series, which were not role locked, and proceeded to tank with minimal health to maximize their damage output. When players flat out ignored the forced gameplay change, the dev team then had to compromise by adding STR progression back on to tank gear. This is a recurring theme through this game's history. When the devs are overly prescriptive about how we play, it usually backfires.
Part of listening to your playerbase comes down to observing how players are actually playing the game and actually adapting changes to fit them. There are a lot of tanks and healers at all skill levels out there who are actually interested in maximising damage, because it gives you something further to optimise and improve on. So you can expect that if counterattack procs are available, people will be standing in avoidable damage just to squeeze in extra damage. You can expect even the most casual of players to start arguing over who gets to tank and can benefit over the extra procs. You can probably already imagine what a nuisance 8p and 24p roulettes will be due to the constant toxic infighting between having multiple 'main tanks' who 'need' to get those counterattack procs.
On the coordinated side, you'll see organised groups testing out if they can get away with a solo MT and locking out OT, or alternatively trying to run double OT and locking out the MT slot.
There are solutions out there. LB penalty/subrole locks have been discussed but tanks are relatively rare. If you have an LB subrole penalty, DF will also be forced to always match one of each, which will increase queue times for casual content. You can apply damage down penalties for trying to proc counters off of avoidable damage, but then players will just min-max off of the ones that don't have damage down attached.
But I'd feel more confident about solutions, if I knew that they acknowledged the potential problems to begin with. -
05-08-2026, 02:18 AMSazuzaki
Exam season finally done. Holy hell this place has become a warzone.
I think the concerns regarding this are valid, but I also think people are being pretty close minded.
If we're looking at alliance raids as Lyth said, the split wouldn't create these issues; more so it would just show what's already been there. I've seen more than a few samurai just stand in an AoE or two just to proc Third Eye, and I've seen DRKs who failed to break their TBN just stand in an AoE just to break it completely LOL. And don't even get me started on the tank fighting... I can't even call them protagonist wannabes because alliance raids are boring as hell if you're not the main tank. So that leads me to this: these issues that I said are not really problems with the jobs but with how raids are designed in general.
If AoE's didn't just give you a vuln but rather some sort of status effect like sleep, paralysis, etc., then that pretty much takes care of that issue because those directly lower your damage output while presenting even more nuisances. They could even take the easy route and just give you a 15% damage down. Alliance raid bosses requiring 24 people but only one tank outside of a mechanic or two is also silly. The best AR bosses always were the big guys who targeted all three parties at once, usually also autoing all three tanks at once. They've gotten better at this in DT with most tank busters being three-person stacks, but there is still the issue of the other tanks not really doing anything when that's not happening.
The issue that I do actually agree with is the possible exclusion of MTs. Though from what I've been seeing, people are acting like that WILL be the case rather than that MAYBE being the case. It's something we'll definitely have to wait to see and makes for valid discussion, but try to have an open mind. -
05-08-2026, 02:28 AMWildheaven182
What something is called is arbitrary unless there are design changes based on it, so we dont have much to talk about but what it might mean for future changes.
I think itll be a failed attempt at diversifying tank jobs in an easy blanket way. But what we want is thematically diversified job gameplay, not performance diversified.
I would also accuse them of using this new classification as a way to promote the new tank job. Im sure it will become the second "main tank" so it is not only paladin. I think "main tank" will be getting some favoritism for survivability too, and right now the glazers will say "noooooo the off tanks will have survivabikity in other ways!"
And then when this turns out to be true the glazers will flip and say "well if you want to main tank then you have to play a main tank, dont play an off tank and expect to perform as well." -
05-08-2026, 02:53 AMSazuzaki
If the split fails, one idea I actually appreciate if they brought back tank stances with tank stance being DPS positive if use your mitigation right, and DPS stance giving you a more active rotation by giving additional effects to certain skills. They've tried this in the past but with the tank stance being DPS negative by locking skills behind the DPS stance, so seeing an inverse could be interesting. If they wanted to keep the soft-split between tanks that's always been there, they could have some tanks excel with tank stance and some excel with DPS stance but give that option available to all of them for added flexibility, much how most GNB's prefer being OT due to continuation.
-
05-08-2026, 03:42 AMCarighan
But wouldn't that mean you're always in Tank stance even if it's more boring, because it produces more damage?
(or vice versa if due to the additional effects DPS stance is more damage then you always want to be in that unless needed mitigation forces you to swap) -
05-08-2026, 04:31 AMSazuzaki
Not exactly because it would be dependent on receiving direct damage that you'd only get from holding aggro. This would result in a situation where people want MT because more damage, and if not that, it would present the old con of wanting to be in one stance because of damage. But if the argument is to allow MTs to be playable as OTs or vice versa, I think it's a decent solution that could serve well if balanced properly to return some flavor to the tanks.
-
05-08-2026, 05:02 AMCarighanHrm, maybe.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sazuzaki
I mean the idea has some merit.
I will say that it sounds needlessly complicated though, since it fixes a problem that from all available evidence just... isn't one. We know from the healer split that there isn't an inherent issue with it, we know from other MMORPGs and this one that such a split is not an overall detriment to a class setup and we know from >30 years of MMORPGs that players readily accept the concepts of MTs and OTs in class design.
Plus it then introduces another button, when we finally got SQEX to finally reduce the bloat. Of course, it could be something you flip in the character screen or so, outside of combat only. Or maybe even on a jobstone level, there's an MT Paladin jobstone and an OT Paladin jobstone, basically? -
05-08-2026, 05:18 AMSazuzaki
That actually could be a pretty cool idea. I know in Blade and Soul, main tanks would spec into an enmity stat to increase their aggro generation. Attaching something like a materia so your job stone and allowing counter attacks to proc via rotation or adding an effect onto a skill like intervention would be neat. Same thing with OTs.
-
05-08-2026, 07:24 AMEldDragonDives
I made my thoughts on the change itself extremely clear in my last comment on this thread, so I will not rehash them here. What I want to bring up instead is how much I hate the WAY they revealed this change.
The Berlin presentation is still a ways away, and in the meantime, we are left to be at each other's throats over a controversial and divisive change that we were given barebones information about, and left with more questions than answers, knowing we're not getting ANY of the answers we need for a depressing amount of time. In my opinion, either they should have given us all the info THEN AND THERE or they should have kept it to themselves until they were ready to GIVE us all the information. This is, again, in my opinion, a terrible way of going about it. It's possible they did this purposefully to see what the initial reaction was, but that's just a possibility and I don't even necessarily believe it myself. I still utterly reject the premise of the division being job-based and it's doubtful anyone will change my mind. -
05-08-2026, 03:34 PMCarighanMT vs OT in an MMORPG is now a "controversial change".Quote:
Originally Posted by EldDragonDives
It really says a lot more about how reductive, static and sheltered FFXIV's design was and still is, and how much it made it fall behind. See also how WoW's housing they did 0-to-hero in one big implementation basically makes a mockery of the one we have here. SQEX was sitting on its laurels too much. We're so unused to change even something as yawn-inducing as this split feels massive to us.
I suspect they just didn't think this'd be a noteworthy point of debate for players. Because it's so normal, after all, the same split basically exists right now on live. In hindsight they should have, of course. Like I said, this game has been so static for so many years (to its detriment) that of course even something like this feels really huge. But I suspect they just didn't because of how a similar split for healers wasn't a problem combined with how the concept just is never an issue for RPGs. Still yeah, they should have maybe expected this given they ought to know their audience, and at least had a full panel about the MT/OT thing and why/how/exactly. -
05-09-2026, 01:19 PMLyth
It's a regressive change.
There were people who considered themselves to be 'main tanks' in FFXIV. That was circa 2013, and they insisted on stacking max parry and VIT. Meanwhile, their skilled colleagues were maximising STR and damage while using using coordinated mitigation and swaps with their co-tank smartly to offset the defensive difference. Gordias ended that debate years ago (it continued on this subforum until about Stormblood, but not everyone got the memo). A more modern game probably wouldn't even implement a trinity design, let alone designate a 'main tank'.
I think the only potentially interesting change here is the idea of counterattacks. However, the planned implementation is something that has been tried and has failed before (because players find ways to take more damage to get more procs). I would be much more impressed if they reworked interject/stun to have job specific flavour and gave all tanks the ability to give mobs vulnerability in exchange selectively countering specific scripted attacks (especially if they're replacing the current system of timed raid buffs). That's the type of counterattack that I'd like to see, rather than spamming Shield Swipe procs off of every raidwide. -
05-09-2026, 04:06 PMCarighanThis is correct, although we can see from Guild Wars 2 that just removing tanks/healers entirely (and by default also removing DPS as a role since it's the only remaining one) does not just solve a problem.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lyth
You still end up with designated main tanks and healers. ;) Even in such a setup!
And like you say, we already had MT/OT splits. We already had game-decided (not player-decided!) MT and OT splits. In fact we have it right now one could easily argue. Which leads me to ask an important question:
You call it a "regressive change". But since, right now, on live, we have an MT/OT split, what is the "change"-part of that statement? Just that it re-shuffles who is MT and who is OT?
(edit)
And not to misrepresent my opinion, I don't like the idea of some being "the MTs" and some others being "the OTs", I'm merely saying that from all available evidence both in this game and others, it's an unavoidable reality. It - seemingly - cannot be avoided. All SQEX is doing here is adopting the terms and realities the playerbase has already created in the game anyways. The sole meaningful difference is that like with healers, we'll probably see content designed with the idea that you have 1 regen + 1 shield healer, errr, 1 counter + 1 protector tank in your group. Nobody is stopping you from not doing it and in fact by and large the game doesn't even care (see DF group composition results), but the devs won't balance for 2 regen or 2 shield healers any more. It might be fine, it might be optimal, but it's never considered during balancing.
I really don't see the problem with doing that as the devs. Because again, they're not adding an MT/OT split. It exists. Right now. I dislike the names (heavily), but I also kinda dislike that on the healers, and I get that many don't like lyrical names. Heck we don't even call the red role "damage dealers" any more; we've reduced them to the number you see, DPS. They're not even inventing the terms if we're being honest, they're merely adopting the terms we the playerbase already use ingame. Right now. -
05-10-2026, 02:55 AMLyth
From my standpoint, I want to see the developers talk us through how they've thought this out, to demonstrate that the potential problems have been evaluated carefully.
At the moment, the terms MT and OT are just a convention used by guide-makers relating to who takes enmity first in the fight script. It's a bit like saying that you prefer the melee M1 position because you like the west corner more than the east corner. There are differences in how the mechanics play out, but you should be able to do either if you're flexible.
This is a bit different. Your MT will want to have enmity for as long as possible to maximize their damage output. If there's a forced swap, your MT needs to swap back as soon as possible to get counterattack procs. If the MT is not the active tank, then they will likely be expected to stand in avoidable AoEs to proc their counterattack to avoid 'griefing' their party with lower damage. There will probably be entirely new 'MT uptime' variations to every strat with different swaps once people get their initial clears and want to maximize damage (and you know how well NA/EU PF handles variations in strategy). You will see lots of PF arguments over who gets to tank and for what parts and over how it impacts their personal damage. I don't even need to see that conflict arise to feel disappointed in it.
And that's in the best case scenario, where MT counterattacks translate into a meaningful damage difference. If they don't, then a lot of groups will deliberately run double OT for the convenience around not having to cater to a MT, and better raidwide mitigation.
I do think that they need to change things up, but there's no point repeating a design decision that we know doesn't work out from past history. Counterattacks are a great idea, but they should be tied to intercepting specific attacks (i.e. an Interject style move) rather than recieving damage. If you did that, you could even make some tanks proc their counterattacks off of tankbusters, and others off of raidwides. I recognize that they've committed to splitting the tanks, but having an obligate MT that has to take damage is not a good idea. You don't need to 'wait and see' if you played Heavensward and Stormblood. Show me how this time is going to be different.
If they were really committed to mixing things up for tanks, we'd see an overhaul of the entire defensive toolkit, which has seen a progressive power creep over many expansions. -
05-10-2026, 10:08 AMDerio
I think they should have just not presented the slide. They still could have shown PLD but without showing an OT, they have only sowed chaos in the community rather than confidence.
That or the wording of MT and OT should have been not used.
After reading some of the JP reviews, many people are happy with the change because one of the biggest problems in JP is there is not a option in the party/group finder to select MT or OT.
Another thing to note is that PLD defensive kit is still heavily bloated. The only thing they lost was Bulwark but the tradeoff for that is more availability for holy sheltron which isnt bad. If anything PLD defensive kit is overtuned compared to the other tanks which further made the slide confusing because of the MT OT description with PLD current kit satisfying both parts of the slide.
I think the biggest thing we can hope for is for Berlin to leave us with more answers than questions. -
05-10-2026, 08:14 PMMikey_RNo, that is what we have seen. We were shown a version of Paladin, it is easy to see how it will play and based on that, gave feedback on that design.Quote:
Originally Posted by BabyYoda
Yes, which I explicitly stated. There has to be something missing from an AoE point of view, not just for Paladin, but the other jobs as well, so there was more speculation and questions being asked there, so, not feedback.Quote:
Originally Posted by BabyYoda
Again, I never said we needed a full kit, but we can base it on what we see. We have seen certain things, we have not seen other things. We can only provide solid feedback on the things we have seen, otherwise, it is just questions that need to be answered before proper feedback can be provided.Quote:
Originally Posted by BabyYoda
And these are questions that need to be asked before you can give proper feedback.Quote:
Originally Posted by BabyYoda
Of which this isn't feedback, this is just essentially demanding the devs to make sure they fit to your demands. And yes, phrasing is everything here. You can hope they do not make the tanks restrictive. I mean, from what we have seen on Paladin, it likely isn't going to be the case (intervention has the same buff naming scheme as Holy Sheltron) and we don't know anything about the OT kit to say anything. The same sort of reasoning is applied to the rest. However, we can also extrapolate the fact that they want to give each job a unique identity, so this is going to be one of the first things they think about when designing a job. The fact you think it might not be the case says more about you than anything.Quote:
Originally Posted by BabyYoda
Also, again, the devs cannot control how the playerbase reacts to naming conventions or how the PF policies the parties they make. They are free to make parties however they want after all. However, if the MT/OT label is different in this game than other games, the community is just going to adapt to it. Noone cares about what came before, all that matters is how it is used in this game.
As a bit of a side comment, looking at kits, Paladin already takes damage better than the other tanks. Guardian objectively mitigates more damage than Damnation and Shadowed Vigil (the healing doesn't impact the direct mitigation and does anyone actually take the healing into account when planning?) and making the comparison, the 1000 shield from Guardian is roughly equivalent to the 20% extra HP Gunbreaker gets, so they are very similar. However, noone actually cares. What if the differences are as small as this? We already know Paladin is getting ways to mitigate damage on other people, it is just, the OTs are a bit more effective. Again, it just feels like people are making a bit song and dance about something that might turn out to be trivial and we need to see more before we can give good, proper feedback on the MT/OT split. Let's not bring in pre-conceived notions from other games, let's not act like everything is going to go to shit based on nothing. The best thing to do is wait and see. Every concern might have already been thought of and accounted for. They aren't going to change anything without you seeing it first. Just calm down and wait and see.
This is one of the reasons why I personally think there isn't going to be much difference in the 2 tanks. Paladin has already been shown to possess things that are shown in the OT list. I just think that the OT is going to do it better. This is similar to what I said above where Guardian is objectively better at mitigating damage than Damnation and Shadowed Vigil, which could be an MT that is 'skilled at taking direct damage'. Yes, the mitigation is going to be better, does it really matter? Not likely.Quote:
Originally Posted by Derio
-
05-10-2026, 09:17 PMBabyYodaYour entire reply is a perfect example of someone confusing patience with analysis.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mikey_R
You are not actually arguing against speculation. You are arguing against speculation you do not personally like.
That is the whole issue.
When you look at partial Paladin footage and say the filler combo may become repetitive, that is “feedback.”
When I look at the MT/OT direction and say the labels may become restrictive, suddenly that is “not feedback,” it is “questions,” “demands,” or apparently some kind of personal flaw.
That is not a principle. That is just selective permission.
You want your own extrapolation to be treated as reasonable, but anyone else’s extrapolation has to wait until the developers personally hand-deliver the entire system with a signed explanation.
Very convenient.
You keep trying to build this artificial wall between “feedback” and “questions,” but it collapses the second your own examples are applied to it. Feedback is not limited to finalized systems. Feedback can be preventive. Feedback can be conditional. Feedback can be directional.
“If this system makes MT/OT rigid, that would be bad” is feedback.
“Do not make tanks lose value outside their assigned label” is feedback.
“Do not let Party Finder turn labels into policing” is feedback.
The fact that you need those statements to be phrased like timid little questions before you recognize them as feedback is your problem, not mine.
And calling them “demands” is especially weak. Players saying what design outcomes they do not want is normal feedback. That is literally how feedback works. Nobody is storming the development office. Nobody is issuing orders. People are identifying a risk in the design direction.
You are just trying to make ordinary feedback sound unreasonable because you do not like the concern being raised.
Then there is the “the devs probably already thought about it” argument, which is honestly the funniest part.
That is speculation too.
You are not avoiding assumptions. You are just choosing the most flattering assumption possible and pretending that makes it more mature.
“My assumption that everything is probably fine is reasonable.”
“Your assumption that something could go wrong is premature.”
That is not objectivity. That is optimism wearing a fake mustache.
And the Party Finder point is even weaker.
No, developers cannot personally control every PF listing. Nobody said they could. That was never the argument.
But developers absolutely shape player behavior through terminology, job design, encounter design, mitigation distribution, balance differences, and reward incentives.
If the game labels jobs in a way that implies fixed responsibilities, players will treat those labels as expectations.
If one tank is clearly stronger in one slot, Party Finder will enforce that.
If a job loses value outside its assigned label, players will optimize around that.
If the system encourages rigidity, the community will not magically become philosophical and flexible. It will do what MMO communities always do: reduce the system into rules, expectations, and exclusion criteria.
This is not dramatic. This is basic MMO behavior.
Saying “the community will adapt” does not answer the concern. The concern is what they will adapt into.
You also keep acting like people are saying the entire system is guaranteed to fail. That is not what is being said.
The concern is simple:
Do not make MT/OT identity rigid.
Do not make tanks feel worse outside their assigned role.
Do not let labels replace gameplay depth.
Do not create terminology that encourages PF policing.
Do not make flexibility a disadvantage.
That is not panic. That is not a demand. That is not “based on nothing.”
It is normal design feedback based on the direction shown, the terminology used, and how MMO communities historically respond to role labels.
Maybe the differences will be minor. Great.
Maybe the system will be flexible. Great.
Maybe the developers have already considered all of this. Great.
Then the feedback is still valid, because the entire point of the feedback is to preserve that flexibility.
You keep saying “wait and see” as if that is some profound position. It is not.
“Wait and see” is not feedback.
“Calm down” is not an argument.
“Maybe it will be fine” is not analysis.
It is just a comfortable way to dismiss concerns until the point where feedback no longer matters.
And this is where your argument completely eats itself.
You are willing to criticize Paladin based on what was shown, because you feel confident enough to extrapolate from incomplete information.
But when someone else extrapolates from the MT/OT direction, suddenly the sacred rules of incomplete information appear out of nowhere.
That is the double standard.
You are not defending careful feedback. You are defending your feedback.
You are not against speculation. You are against speculation that does not match your preferred conclusion.
You are not being more rational. You are just being more forgiving toward the assumptions you already like.
The most ironic part is that you accuse others of making a “song and dance” while writing paragraphs to explain why your speculation is valid and theirs is not.
That is not restraint. That is selective dramatics.
So no, the issue is not that my concerns are premature.
The issue is that you want your own guesses treated as informed feedback while everyone else’s concerns get downgraded into questions, demands, panic, or “saying more about them.”
That is not a serious standard.
That is just bias pretending to be patience. -
05-11-2026, 07:05 AMCarighanYeah, definitely. Not without being also able to show all tank-setups at least.Quote:
Originally Posted by Derio
-
05-12-2026, 06:16 PMTerhixGoing through the entire Arcadion:Quote:
Originally Posted by Lyth
M1S: there are swaps for busters but you swap back immediately.
M2S: MT actively tanks the whole fight.
M3S: 1 swap for a buster by convention.
M4S: 1 swap for a buster by convention.
M5S: MT actively tanks the whole fight.
M6S: desert patch might see MT lose uptime, not an issue with 2x20s gauge.
M7S: some tether swaps during which MT still takes damage.
M8S: 1 swap for a buster by convention.
M9S: MT actively tanks the whole fight.
M10S: MT actively tanks at least one of the bros.
M11S: MT actively tanks the whole fight.
M12S: MT only loses uptime for candies in P2, not an issue with 2x20s gauge.
12 savage fights, 13 if you count the door boss as a separate thing, and in none of them this would be an issue.
Ultimates tend to be a bit different, FRU certainly has some moments where depending on strat MT isn't actively tanking, but if you plan strats with Evo tanks in mind those are things that are easy to correct. Ultimates also generally blast the entire raid with damage so frequently you can probably have 2 MTs and still get all your counters in, sans complete downtime (boss not targetable).
I can see there might be places, especially in Extremes and below, where a tank with counters eats a vuln to get an extra counter in, but this is something that already happens - not for counters but for melee uptime. In EX5 it's a common practice to drop a short CD and eat a vuln during MM1 if it saves you uptime, some guides even recommend it! I'm not going to tell you that taking avoidable damage to do more dps is a good thing to do, but if you are against counters based on the fact that it might incentivize that behavior, you should also be against tanks losing melee uptime since it also incentivizes that behavior. We already had a whole expansion where melees (tanks included) virtually never lost uptime and decided that's bad for the game. -
05-12-2026, 11:39 PMMukukuWouldn't that actually make things worse?Quote:
Originally Posted by Terhix
What is the answer to "DRK/WAR/GBR" which might want to MT or vice-versa? Today there might be a meta but the balance is so close that these players have options. Which options do they have once playing "off-subrole" leads to a significant loss in efficiency?
100% uptime is not bad for the game. Achieving 100% uptime by designing bosses as mostly static with huge hitboxes is bad for the game.Quote:
Originally Posted by Terhix
IMHO players should achieve 100% uptime by proper boss positioning and movement, potentially adding a dimension to encounters and avenue for skill expression. -
05-13-2026, 12:16 AMCarighan[citation needed]Quote:
Originally Posted by Mukuku
Because the devs have said the difference will be small enough. Which the current differences also are. Which makes me wonder where you even get the idea from.
So I have two thoughts about that:Quote:
Originally Posted by Mukuku
* Okay, that still makes melee DPS as a role conceptually pointless as if they cannot ever lose uptime, that's no different than a caster that never has to cast (also a problem this game has) and is fully mobile.
* More importantly, do tell how you imagine this'd work. -
05-13-2026, 12:49 AMMukukuWhat they stated at the Fan Fest, with emphasis mine:Quote:
Originally Posted by Carighan
So the difference at the high end of the spectrum will not be "small enough", unless we have a different understanding of what "far more efficiently" means.Quote:
High end content, such as Savage and Ultimate parties, these parties will be able to clear these duties far more efficiently by taking advantage of both the main and off role.
As of low level content, It's true they stated the difference should not matter that much there, but the issue IMHO is the DPS performance being tied to the role.
A difference in survivability or healing does become irrelevant. Once you can comfortably survive, more survivability/healing becomes basically worthless. A difference in DPS is never irrelevant as more DPS is always desirable even long after you have enough DPS to clear.
What makes you think they cannot lose uptime? That you can achieve 100% uptime does not mean you would get that for free without any skill expression. Dealing with boss positioning and movement is a way to have another dimension and increase the skill expression potential for encounters.Quote:
Originally Posted by Carighan
You can take inspiration from other MMOs to imagine how this could work. In WoW there are plenty of encounters where positioning and moving the boss is very important to optimize how mechanics can be resolved and how damage can be optimized.Quote:
Originally Posted by Carighan
It's a different game with different design, but it doesn't mean FFXIV cannot take some inspiration as they did and still are doing for some aspects of the game. -
05-13-2026, 05:56 AMTerhixI've no idea what you're talking about, genuinely. Are you assuming MT will do more dps because they counter? If so, I've a bridge to sell you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mukuku
-
05-13-2026, 07:33 AMMikey_RARR Paladin was one combo over and over again, how many people complain that Dark Knight needs another combo? How about healers who want to do more than press the 1 button with the occasional other button. We have so many examples that spamming 1 attack/combo over and over is not the most exciting thing. The only reason you don't really feel it on Bard is because they have many different things to keep track of that you forget the filler is pressing 1 button. This then flies in opposition to:Quote:
Originally Posted by BabyYoda
Where we have 4 total bullet points and what we have seen from Paladin. We know nothing. You have no idea what an OT kit looks like, you do not know how it is going to handle things, you know nothing. Everything past the bullet points is speculation. There is no feedback to give, just questions to ask.Quote:
Originally Posted by BabyYoda
If you cannot see the difference, that is on you and maybe you should start thinking about what is actually said rather than what you think has been said. You have misquoted me several times on my views, including this one:
Which is never what I said at all. Again, failing to understand what has been said and the arguments being made does not help you at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by BabyYoda
If that is what you got, you misunderstand my points. I am neutral on anything we haven't seen, which means I am not going to say it is all a bad idea in the same way I am not going to say it is a good idea. I know, novel right.Quote:
Originally Posted by BabyYoda
Your argument was to ask the devs to not create community pressure where PLD has to MT and WAR/DRK/GNB have to OT. That is post 138.Quote:
Originally Posted by BabyYoda
Or, how about 'Do not turn MT/OT into another source of Party Finder policing.' in post 142, repeated in 153, 155, 173, and 189.
You are the one who bought this point up, all I have said is, the devs cannot control the playerbase and the playerbase will adapt. I do not see how you can argue with that.
But is that what you see at the moment? Do people only take specific jobs because they do the most damage? For the most part, no, only if there is a very very clear outlier. Do PF listings always have a barrier and pure healer only? No, they can mix it up depending on the content. The same thing is ging to happen here.Quote:
Originally Posted by BabyYoda
Again, never said that. Just said do not make assumptions about the system and doom and gloom over those assumptions. Wait for the information to come out and then give proper feedback.Quote:
Originally Posted by BabyYoda
Unless the neutral position is now classed as 'profound', then no.Quote:
Originally Posted by BabyYoda
The interesting thing about this whole exchange is the fact it started as me saying to not make assumptions about things and then make comments based on that assumption. However, that is exactly what you have been doing to me. Regardless, I really do not care about responding any more, so I won't be. -
05-13-2026, 09:03 AMBabyYoda“I really do not care about responding anymore, so I won’t be.”Quote:
Originally Posted by Mikey_R
That is a very dramatic way of saying you wanted the last word without having to defend it.
And honestly, the timing is perfect.
You were very invested when the argument was “other people are making assumptions.” You had plenty of energy for “you misunderstood me,” “you misquoted me,” “you do not understand the argument,” and “that is on you.”
But the second your own assumptions get put under the same standard, suddenly the conversation is beneath you.
Very impressive neutrality.
The problem is simple: you are not against assumptions. You are against assumptions that make the system look risky.
When someone says MT/OT direction could create rigidity, that is speculation.
When you say the playerbase will adapt, PF will be fine, and people will mix roles depending on content, that is apparently neutral analysis.
That is not neutrality. That is your optimism wearing a referee shirt.
You keep trying to frame this as if people are saying “the system is guaranteed to fail.” They are not. That is just the version of the argument you need in order to sound reasonable.
The actual argument has been painfully simple:
A system can be interesting and still carry risks.
A design direction can be promising and still need clarification.
A community can adapt, but it can also reduce design incentives into rigid expectations.
This is basic MMO behavior. Players optimize. PF filters. Communities simplify. Metas form. Expectations harden. None of this requires the developers to personally control every listing.
So when you keep saying “the devs cannot control the playerbase,” you are not answering the point. You are dodging it with a sentence that sounds useful until someone reads it twice.
And the Paladin comparison still exposes the whole thing.
Partial Paladin footage is enough for feedback about possible repetition.
Official MT/OT bullet points are somehow not enough for feedback about possible restriction.
So your standard is not “do we have enough information?”
Your standard is “do I like the concern being raised?”
That is why this whole “wait and see” routine is not as neutral as you think it is.
“Wait and see” is the easiest position in any pre-release discussion. It costs nothing. It risks nothing. It contributes almost nothing. It lets you dismiss concerns before release and then act like nobody could have known afterward.
It is not analysis. It is just hiding behind uncertainty.
Feedback before release exists specifically because systems are not finalized yet. If we wait until everything is locked in, then feedback becomes postmortem commentary.
But sure, call it speculation if that makes the exit cleaner.
Just do not pretend leaving the conversation is some mic-drop moment.
It is not.
It is just you realizing that your entire argument depends on giving your own assumptions a nicer name than everyone else’s. -
05-13-2026, 02:35 PMMukukuExcept they showed exactly that during the Fan Fest when they showcased PLD? When using Sheltron the PLD did get the buff Surcoat of Satisfaction for 4 seconds and Surcoat of Answer after that for additional 4 seconds. Answering Strike did gets increased potency by blocking damage during Surcoat of Satisfaction. This means countering properly deals more damage than not countering or countering badly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Terhix
Unless you mean "more dps than OTs"? I don't know that, but I know that the devs intend to make using MT/OT "far more efficient" (their words). I don't know how yet, but unless they mess up and fail to achieve their intended design goal you will likely want both and you will likely want both playing in their assigned sub-roles. -
05-13-2026, 04:33 PMCarighanWhatever floats your Doom Barge, I suppose. /shrug Did healers implode when they got split into regen and shield? No. Argument done, this isn't a doomsday moment.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mukuku
Well duh, yes. You just need to look at healers or DPS to know that. How is that even noteworthy?Quote:
Originally Posted by Mukuku
-
05-13-2026, 04:53 PMTerhixYes, I meant the latter: MT jobs will not do more dps than OT jobs just because they got a counter mechanic. I still don't know what you meant by "Wouldn't that actually make things worse?" with regard to MTs in savage being active tanks virtually all the time? If you bring an Evo MT and an Evo OT jobs into the party, the MT job has to main tank to get (most of) their counters in. If you don't like that design I think that's valid, your feedback is valid, and I've no issue with that at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mukuku
We don't know what the efficiency is exactly, but we do know what it is roughly from that one slide. If you have two MT jobs you lose dps from one of them being in the OT position, and some mitigation from not having an OT job. If you bring two OT jobs the tanks and/or healers might do some extra work to account for slightly weaker personal mits. MT + OT gives you the best mits (both for raid and for the MT via their personals + OT debuff) and optimal dps. Double MT is probably going to be less viable than double OT, but as long as neither is better than the MT+OT that is fine: the same is true for healers currently where double barrier is generally more viable than double regen.