"You pull, you tank" is a bad mentality

[ZephyrMenodora]

Here is an official response from a GM on the matter.

Even if that is the case, I doubt dismissing a tank for not wall to wall pulling will be viewed as justified. Especially as they have another rule in the same document that specifically says you can't compel tanks to pull more than they choose to. This is a specific issue they decided to address in the document, so I think the rule is pretty clear.

Personally, I think that rule WOULD still allow another player to pull some extra mobs to the tank, and the tank should pick them up. It's very vague though, but I think a tank purposely letting the extra mobs kill everyone should be punished also. I think a tank trying to be slick by suddenly only using single-taget and no AEs is easy enough to witness too.

Some of the rules are a bit strange, going so far as to say that you should "suggest" that the tank have their tank stance on....but...those are the rules lol.
---

Expressing your wishes in the form of a request, as in the following example, does not constitute a violation.

"I'm getting attacked by the enemies, can you put on your stance?"
---

I mean, what if the response is "no" to the request the tank have their stance on? Who knows.

[Kolaina]

If you vote kick because they are not pulling enough (IN YOUR OPINION) and otherwise doing their role and not being disruptive, and you can still clear the content - this is still an infraction for which you can be reported. You may want to review.

https://support.na.square-enix.com/f...5382&kid=68216

Unjustified usage of Vote Dismiss
Refers to the act of dismissing a player in a way that is unjustified under the intended use of Vote Dismiss.
Key Points
If a report has been filed and the prohibited activity is confirmed, a penalty will be issued.

Please note that Square Enix may conduct investigations and issue a penalty in its discretion even if a report has not been filed if the act was confirmed publicly through online video, streaming services, or other means.

--

The spirit of these rules is to create a welcoming environment for the game's playerbase, and that includes people with less skill and differing playstyles. As far as I'm aware, "Difference in playstyle" comes from 6 years ago - and these prohibited activities supplanted that.

If you are unaware of why you can vote dismiss - here is an image of a vote dismiss: https://ffxiv.gamerescape.com/w/images/f/f7/151712.png

- AFK
- Offline
- Harassment
- Cheating

I don't see "difference in playstyle" anywhere.

Difference of play style is a valid reason and gms use that reason. Like it or not, it’s good enough.

[ZephyrMenodora]

Difference of play style is a valid reason and gms use that reason. Like it or not, it’s good enough.

If I'm ever vote kicked for "difference in play style" - I will report and let you know how true that is.

Fortunately in game I'm always willing to try and compromise on requests, so hopefully I never personally have to deal with this. Some anecdotal reddit comments have suggested that the GMs do not view "difference in playstyle" to be enough today, and will investigate vote kicks for reasons like you suggest you'd use it for. Again, a more recent rule against this is specifically laid out in the more recent document.

Here is one such comment from a reddit thread in 2019 about whether "difference in playstyle" is still valid:
====

I was vote kicked earlier today because the healer didn't like that I picked up 2 extra adds (the big dragons near the broodlings in The Aery) a long the way as the tank. I was literally level 55, so at level for the duty, and leveling my class. I got a very different response from the GM call that I made, after suddenly being kicked out of the duty mid-pull, than the one in that older thread so it's really not the end-all-be-all of how the GMs feel and I think people need to be aware of this. The support desk message I received talked about it being "possible abuse of the vote dismiss feature" and they also said "we acknowledge that there is still a possibility of this tool being used as a Grief Tactic.", they asked for more specific details, names, date/time, and anything that was said. I just got confirmation that they have enough to start an investigation, "in accordance with our policies", into abuse of vote dismiss and griefing tactics.

----

If you want to provide actual evidence that "difference in playstyle" is still valid, and that GMs will ignore the very document they released, I'd be interested to see it.

[Kolaina]

If I'm ever vote kicked for "difference in play style" - I will report and let you know how true that is.

Fortunately in game I'm always willing to try and compromise on requests, so hopefully I never personally have to deal with this. Some anecdotal reddit comments have suggested that the GMs do not view "difference in playstyle" to be enough today, and will investigate vote kicks for reasons like you suggest you'd use it for. Again, a more recent rule against this is specifically laid out in the more recent document.

Here is one such comment from a reddit thread in 2019 about whether "difference in playstyle" is still valid:
====

I was vote kicked earlier today because the healer didn't like that I picked up 2 extra adds (the big dragons near the broodlings in The Aery) a long the way as the tank. I was literally level 55, so at level for the duty, and leveling my class. I got a very different response from the GM call that I made, after suddenly being kicked out of the duty mid-pull, than the one in that older thread so it's really not the end-all-be-all of how the GMs feel and I think people need to be aware of this. The support desk message I received talked about it being "possible abuse of the vote dismiss feature" and they also said "we acknowledge that there is still a possibility of this tool being used as a Grief Tactic.", they asked for more specific details, names, date/time, and anything that was said. I just got confirmation that they have enough to start an investigation, "in accordance with our policies", into abuse of vote dismiss and griefing tactics.

----

If you want to provide actual evidence that "difference in playstyle" is still valid, and that GMs will ignore the very document they released, I'd be interested to see it.

Like how people can’t tell you how to play, you can’t force your play style on others. If you get vote kicked, majority agreed you had to go. No need to cry about it

[ZephyrMenodora]

Like how people can’t tell you how to play, you can’t force your play style on others. If you get vote kicked, majority agreed you had to go. No need to cry about it

I'm sorry, but that is now how the rules work at all. In fact, they can take action on everyone who agreed with the vote dismiss if it was improperly used.

[Kolaina]

I'm sorry, but that is now how the rules work at all. In fact, they can take action on everyone who agreed with the vote dismiss if it was improperly used.

You were already shown a gm statement on the vote kick use. Forcing your playstyle on others is good enough reason for me to have you removed

[ZephyrMenodora]

You were already shown a gm statement on the vote kick use. Forcing your playstyle on others is good enough reason for me to have you removed

Except that is now how the rule works. Your GM statement does not even address the issue that IS clearly addressed in the prohibited activities document.

They specifically give an example of trying to force a tank to pull more than they want to, and was stated to be prohibited. It's fine people agree with you because that's how they'd like things to be, but the reality is Square Enix has a business interest in ensuring players of all skill levels are treated respectfully and can enjoy the game.

Anyway, if I am ever vote kicked for not pulling enough for some player, I'll report them, cite the Prohibited Activities document, and let you know how that goes. *shrug*

[aveyond-dreams]

Which is precisely why they have expanded Trust options for those players so they can practice and hone their skills until they are ready to meet the pace followed by the majority of people in roulettes, which is a mininum of 2 packs per pull.

[ZephyrMenodora]

Which is precisely why they have expanded Trust options for those players so they can practice and hone their skills until they are ready to meet the pace followed by the majority of people in roulettes, which is a mininum of 2 packs per pull.

True that you can practice with Trusts. Incorrect that they actively teach multi-pulling.

Early Squadrons actually teach nothing. You can actually die as the tank multi-pulling as your AI like Cecily will do nothing for quite a while and decide to heal you at 300 hp, which requires the tank to kite to stay alive.

Later on, the Trust tanks pulls nothing on his own. Trusts are great for learning Mechanics as the AI will tell you where to stand if you follow them, but they do not actively teach pulling anything.

And based on my experience the past 2 months since returning, I don't think your playstyle is nearly the majority that you think you it is based on how the typical casual player roulette actually plays the game. You know, players that don't spend all that much of their time in the game and it's just a hobby for, as opposed to someone like yourself with multiple alts, or other posters with every job maxed out within 2 months of an expansion. Players not even invested enough to be posting here at all.

Anyway, I'll never agree with those who think it's fine to disrespect other players and belittle them for not playing at a certain level, so I'll be bowing out from here. There are rules in place, and I will use them if I need to, which is hopefully never.

[aveyond-dreams]

True that you can practice with Trusts. Incorrect that they actively teach multi-pulling.

Early Squadrons actually teach nothing. You can actually die as the tank multi-pulling as your AI like Cecily will do nothing for quite a while and decide to heal you at 300 hp, which requires the tank to kite to stay alive.

And based on my experience the past 2 months since returning, I don't think your playstyle is nearly the majority that you think you it is based on how the typical casual player roulette actually plays the game. You know, players that don't spend all that much of their time in the game and it's just a hobby for, as opposed to someone like yourself with multiple alts, or other posters with every job maxed out within 2 months of an expansion. Players not even invested enough to be posting here at all.

Later on, the Trust tanks pulls nothing on his own. Trusts are great for learning Mechanics as the AI will tell you where to stand if you follow them, but they do not actively teach pulling anything.

Squadron AI is not on the level of Trust AI. You can easily make Thancred do multiple packs at a time and he survives easily, likely because he makes use of cooldowns which is a standing pillar of tank gameplay in order to reduce incoming damage.

This is something easily seen and picked up on in the levelling process. It makes logical sense for the "shield" of the party to reduce damage to make surviving easier. If you don't want to do this, then the tank role is not suitable for your style of gameplay. You have to make the decision of how much to pull in Trusts, otherwise the npcs just stand there regardless of what role you enter as.

The typical roulette experience is a smooth, less than 20 minutes run with mininum 2 packs per pull. If they were not, I would not deign to help carry other players through 8 year old content. There has to be some advantage over running things with Trusts. If I find that a party is unable to meet this standard beyond level 50, I leave the instance. If you cannot respect my time by performing at least at the level of Trust characters then I have no reason to remain.

He teaches the actual tank player only how to react to pulls someone else did. Thanks.

Precisely. Rather than getting upset or starting arguments, Thancred performs his role without causing any unnecessary issues. He aoes, uses a cooldown, and the run continues. Thank you for your acknowledgement of this.