Please Reconsider Splitting Main and Off-Tank Roles Based on Job

[xbahax92]

I mean, you'll still be able to tank various 4man dungeons/content just fine, even as a DRK/WAR/GNB, right?. So, it shouldn't matter if you're MT or OT.

It's safe to assume that their own job gimmicks dictates how they'll be played in the future? If a Paladin has to take damage to counter or perfect-counter, than it makes sense that he gets the MT role.
A Paladins whole identity is about keeping your party safe with defensive abilities and white magicks etc.

Im going to reserve an opinion about the other 4 tanks.

[Xerkrosis]

Can't wait to be bullied into OT-role in roulette, because people won't see the difference in reborn and evolved-roles, but simply DRK/GNB/WAR → OT, PLD → MT. Nobody who doesn't play the tank-jobs will see it more distinctively.

[Carighan]

Can't wait to be bullied into OT-role in roulette, because people won't see the difference in reborn and evolved-roles, but simply DRK/GNB/WAR → OT, PLD → MT. Nobody who doesn't play the tank-jobs will see it more distinctively.

Yeah the naming is kinda bad, because from what little they've shown the damage output should be identical and unaffected. It's just about whether you're better at reducing damage on yourself or others.

[Mukuku]

I don't think splitting tank jobs into "official" MT and OT sub-roles is the right decision.

It's still not clear how relevant the difference will be, but if it's small enough to be irrelevant there is no need to have these sub-roles at all, whereas if it's large enough to warrant having proper sub-roles it will introduce further limitations in how a player can play their preferred job.

In high level content players might be pushed to forfeit playing their favourite job to fill the "proper" sub-role. Some adaptability at that level is more or less already expected, but that would add an ever more limiting factor to their choice.

Even in low-level, matched content, there might be friction if e.g. you get 2 MT sub-role tanks in a duty or 1 MT 1 OT with the OT sub-role tank which wants to actually MT, but doesn't want to abandon their preferred job to do so.

Furthermore, it seems optimal damage will be tied to play the correct job sub-role. E.g. a MT tank apparently will lose damage by not being the tank with aggro. Regardless of content level, many players dislike being put in a position where they deal sub-optimal damage, regardless of whether said damage is necessary to clear the content or not.

IMHO this change goes in the opposite direction from what the game needs: I'd rather see sub-roles in general to be phased out, or be replaced with stances or skill selections/modifiers that allow a job to switch their "flavour". E.g. any tank being able to switch from MT to OT "flavour" or vice-versa at the beginning of an encounter.

I understand there are concerns of job homogenization, but I don't think further splitting jobs into sub-roles is the solution. IMHO it's a solution that creates more problems that it solves, especially if playing the "wrong" sub-role will mean taking a damage done hit.

[Reinhardt_Azureheim]

The labels "Main Tank" and "Off Tank" used in their panel fundamentally are just names. What we consider a main tank or an off tank in actuality will likely differ anyhow.

Look at Evolved Paladin, the supposed "Main Tank" in that dichotomy. It still has Intervention (Holy Sheltron @ Ally), Divine Veil, Passage of Arms and Cover (Intervene @ Ally) - all the tools of why we consider Paladin to be a strong off-tank in the first place. Does this scream "this will never be used in an OT position" to you?

Likewise, you can make "Off Tanks" work as main tank. Those dichotomy labels are just that, labels - poorly picked ones that do not reflect position but rather functions of how mitigation may operate. Every tank will still have invulns and baseline mitigations (Rampart, 40%, Reprisal, likely a Short CD too).

Also, this is kinda whack to me considering how many see current Warrior as a de-facto Main Tank for the simple reasons like "this has the best sustain" and even just suggesting to play WAR in an OT position is seen as heresy. The only people enforcing MT and OT designation is us, the players.

You still wanna MT as WAR-DRK-GNB? You still wanna OT as PLD-newJob? Do it! It will most likely not even be bad at all.

[Rithy255]

The thing that is weird to me is that PLD keeps cover... actually no it has Cover on dash with no gauge cost which is far more useable so couldn't it pretty much function as a OT and take big hits for the tank whos holding aggro anyway, reducing damage on self? its got intervention and passage still It feels like a very weird categorisation of things to me. I do like the idea of war/drk/gnb having more debuffs on enemies but i dont think that would determin who's MT or OT Unless their self mitigation has become really lacking (which even then a good PLD can just take hard hits for you on off tank)

PLD still looks to me like a amazing OT option; heck even better now you can stock up your self mits and easily cover with no gauge cost for some tank busters, while also still having intervention and raid wides

It reminds me of the pure/shield healer split; its kinda pointless when they keep adding skills that cross over anyway.

[SalamanderIX]

Here's what we know so far, the Paladin has an ability that is a counter-attack. That would make it slightly more ideal in a main tank role.
Since we don't know the other tanks reasons to have these subroles, it's really hard to say. However, considering Paladin still had supportive abilities, it could still make a fine offtank. It'll probably just lose some DPS for doing so, or need to engage in a more deliberate fashion to offtank.
Could be the case with the other tanks too...

I'd recall in Stormblood, Dark Knight was almost exclusively an offtank otherwise you'd end up spending your offensive resources on defenses, TBN was thrown onto the main and not yourself. Well this was often the case. Maybe something like that happens again. And it wasn't like Dark Knight couldn't maintank, and it had more identity.

If it causes more job identity, then it is probably worth it.

[Mukuku]

I'd recall in Stormblood, Dark Knight was almost exclusively an offtank otherwise you'd end up spending your offensive resources on defenses, TBN was thrown onto the main and not yourself. Well this was often the case. Maybe something like that happens again. And it wasn't like Dark Knight couldn't maintank, and it had more identity.

What you are saying is that in Stormblood although "DRK could maintank", it was effectively "almost exclusively an offtank".

Assuming that's true, it is exactly what some players are concerned about: they don't want to be pigeonholed in a specific tank sub-role depending on their tank job.

[EldDragonDives]

I feel extremely strongly about this, so strongly that I finally signed up for these forums just to make my feelings known.

I am a DRK main, and I love to main tank, and at least in its current incarnation, I absolutely despise off-tanking. I do not find off-tanking to be fun or engaging in the slightest, and I heavily resent having my job arbitrarily dropped into a box that I VEHEMENTLY do not want to be in. I have seen many GNB and WAR MT players say the same. I also know more than one PLD player who prefers to off-tank, and it's equally unfair to force them into the MT box if they don't want to be there.

A significant portion of the keynote presentation was focused on customization and playing YOUR character how YOU want to play them, and that really resonated with me as it did with so many others. But then to suddenly attempt to force tanks into specific roles depending on what job you prefer, similarly to what they've done with healers, feels like they completely threw customization out the window and took choice away from not only me, but every tank player.

On other websites I have seen many people reply to people expressing these concerns with "Just play Reborn then" but I do not see this as an acceptable solution. When Evolved and Reborn modes were revealed, it was said upfront that Evolved was slightly stronger than Reborn, and groups at all levels of content have an unfortunate tendency to look unkindly on members doing or playing anything deemed "suboptimal" (whether actual or perceived), especially in high-end content. I fully anticipate PF in particular excluding people who prefer Reborn based on the stated-to-be-weaker damage alone. I also do not anticipate PF looking kindly on tanks even in Evolved mode who want to, say MT as an E-WAR or OT as an E-PLD. Even in non-high-end duties, I foresee problems when you have, say, a Reborn GNB who wants to MT paired with an E-PLD who also wants to MT. This current iteration is just ill-conceived all around IMO.

The concepts they've put forth are interesting, but the only way I can in good conscience endorse them is if EVERY tank has access to both MT and OT abilities. I was excited for almost every other announcement but this has severely soured my mood and I'm not sure how much I want to play the new expansion as things currently stand. Of course we don't have all the details yet, and I sincerely hope things change in such a way that I eat these words.

[TouchandFeel]

I posted this in a different thread but this seems to be the thread with the most discussion on this.

I honestly don't think it's going to be as hard of a mt/ot split as many people are assuming.

From what has been shown so far, my guess is that it will likely be that the "mt" tanks will just have a few extra things around managing direct single-target damage, while the "ot" tanks will have a few extra things for managing AoE/multi-target damage.

For example, as shown at the panel and already pointed out in the thread, PLD can redirect the damage from a tankbuster hitting the other tank to themselves with Cover and still trigger their retaliation ability since they used Holy Sheltron on themselves. So, the PLD can still use their "MT" aspect of managing direct damage in the "OT" position.
Where it may be "less efficient" is simply that if the PLD had been in the "MT" position, they wouldn't have had to target the other tank and use Cover.

Since an example of one of the "OT" jobs hasn't been shown yet, it's hard to determine how exactly those will play in terms of how they may be helping manage AoE damage for the party. I really hope it's not just giving them an extra ability or button to press that just does it, that would be super boring.

That actually brings me to my potential biggest concern, which is disparity of fun and engagement between the MT/OT split.
They highlighted that the MT tanks will have this new retaliation mechanic based around well timed defensive abilities. That's super cool and will add extra engagement and skill to playing the MT tanks. As we haven't seen or been told much about the OT tanks, we don't know if there is any new game-play around their OT role similar to the retaliation mechanic of the MT role. It would really suck if there wasn't.

So, as others have said, I don't think it's going to be so much a "MT/OT" division but more of a division of a little extra for single-target damage vs a little extra for AoE damage and either of those can be used regardless of whether you are playing in the MT or OT position.