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

[Oizen]

People need to relax until more details are available. By my best guess, "main tank" simply means most likely two things

1) Having slightly better self-protection and
2) Having more "counter attacks" than off-tanks (use a "defend" skill like Shelltron, get hit, able to do a counter skill)

If that's the case that does not mean you won't be able to tank as an "off-tank", you just won't have the "counter attack" play style. And with off-tanks having less self-protection, yet still able to survive tank busters, it could mean healers would need to spend 1 or 2 more GCDs to heal after a tank buster, reducing the advantage of taking two off-tanks for higher damage.

With this, I don't mind this change, quite the contrary. We'll just have to wait and see until more details are available.

I agree, and honestly the game is already like this with the design differences of Dark Knight vs Paladin.

I think people are just mad because WAR is an OT when realistically speaking a lot of its self healing is completely wasted on the OT position as is. I'm guessing its getting a sizable rework.

[Reinhardt_Azureheim]

[...] And if PLD's intervention applies the same buff then whats even the point of making it a MT? Just seems like a very odd choice to me.

Because "MT" and "OT" in the case of what the devs use to call them are crude labels that simply describe two different tank dichotomies and has probably nothing to do with us choosing to be a Main Tank or Off Tank in a raid role.

From what the descriptions of the powerpoint slide say, "Main Tank" is basically just better at being a Bruiser (slightly better personal mitigation or using direct mitigation) where-as the "Off Tank" is closer to a Debilitator/Debuffer specialization with maybe better ally mitigation capabilties. The way I interpret this is them trying to actually make tank dichotomies mechanically much more than forcing roles, similar to us having Pure Healers & Barrier Healers.

That mechanical split is basically an attempt to counteract the homogenization that tanks have gone through over the expansions - every tank plays virtually the same now, rarely does one tank or another mitigate differently, they're all extremely cookie cutter.

Personally I wouldn't get so hung up about whether my tank is labelled MT or OT and more about what the core kits will look like.

[Atreus]

I mean its really not about ego. Its about how warrior will likely be made to play off tank a lot more, not everyones going to be happy with that; I also like flexing to MT/OT.

They'll live. Everyone else has been flexible or locked into roles for some time.

And if PLD's intervention applies the same buff then whats even the point of making it a MT? Just seems like a very odd choice to me.

Valid concern. I think it's just poor labeling. I don't think things are finished yet and I don't think it's going to be as black and white and everyone's making it. Bottom line is we do not know enough.

[Mikey_R]

The question that needs to be asked is, if they had called them something other than MT and OT, would people still have the same reaction?

I suspect they wouldn't and the main reasoning behind that is because MT and OT already have a meaning as defined by other games, however, we know when SE labels something, it doesn't necessarily mean that it is going to be the same concept as every other game out there.

With the reaction placed purely on the name, and not what was described, assumptions have been made about how the 2 roles are going to play and opinions made based on those assumptions.

However, the bottom line is, we just do not know enough info. I do predict we will see an OT shown at the Berlin Fan Fest (likely Warrior), so, once we see that, we can analyse it, the same as we have done for Paladin in it's current state, and compare the 2 kits and see what is different. This is only at the end of July, so plenty of time to give feedback then. Not to mention, even from the Japanese Fan Fest, there is still time, we even know things have changed form the media tour build and things can still be changed after release before the first raid tier. Even if we wait now, there is plenty of time for feedback when we know more.

[Lyth]

I think their insistance on categorizing support roles into two main archetypes (i.e. PLD vs. WAR, WHM vs. SCH) has hamstrung design creativity since ARR.

I get that it's done as a balance convenience, but unless role subtypes are enforced this will likely backfire again. Both tanks will need to be active at some point in any given fight, or else you start looking at solo tank comps. If an OT tank job can actively tank equally well, then you start thinking about bringing two OT tank jobs for better raidwide mitigation unless those counters are adding a lot of extra dps.

The starting point for design shouldn't be to get players to play in a specific way. You need to give them tools to experiment with and see what they do with it. I'm more impressed with what they did with the DRG jump having mitigation attached, because that's the sort of risk that I would rather see them take.

[Terhix]

I think their insistance on categorizing support roles into two main archetypes (i.e. PLD vs. WAR, WHM vs. SCH) has hamstrung design creativity since ARR.

I don't think the evidence agrees with you here. ARR and HW tanks were not balanced but they were different from each other. The tanks aren't split right now and their design creativity amounts to:

• Every tank has Rampart
• Every tank has Reprisal
• Every tank has 40% mit on 2min cooldown
• Every tank has a raidwide mit on a 90s cooldown
• Every tank has a short CD mit that they can put on other people (directly or via another button that shares cooldown/resources)
• Every tank has a DLC personal mit

They cannot give any tank a counter attack move in current game without making that tank the automatic MT, that is an actual design space restriction. Heck, look at all the upset WARs when they don't get to MT and lose 0.2% of dps from couple extra 55p ticks of Vengeance/Damnation.

[Lyth]

I'm saying that they shouldn't build tanks to conform to fixed templates, which is something that they've been doing since ARR. Creating a 'pure healer/shield healer' (WHM/SCH) style dichotomy for tanks isn't going to be any more groundbreaking for game design than it was for healers in 2021.

HW DRK borrowed elements from both PLD and WAR, which is why it ultimately became a PLD replacement. A lot of the elements that you describe as being part of the 'tank template' were still there, including:

• Rampart
• 30% mit on a 3min cooldown (as the counterpart to Sentinel/Vengenace)
• Invulnerability (Living Dead was created as a more punishing variant of Holmgang)
• Delirium/Reprisal (as the counterpart to Storm's Path/Rage of Halone)

As much as I enjoyed the job at the time, it was still creatively hampered by forcibly conforming to existing tank templates.

When tanks are too similar, little balance differences end up creating a huge impact. Breaking them off into a PLD-reskin category and a WAR-reskin category doesn't really address this issue, nor does it break new ground.

As an example, could you create a defensive toolkit entirely out of placeable shields that line of sight incoming damage? Could you create a lifesteal tank that converts health into burst mitigation?

If they're introducing a new tank, I want to see something radically different from the others in design, like they did with the DRG jump concept. I would rather them take a creative risk and completely upend job balance than be overly safe and create a new form of homogeneity. Updating PLD and building a new PLD-reskin isn't the answer.

[inhaledcorn]

I'm... worried about the changes, but I still think it's too early to say how this will affect the game based on hearsay, basically. I'm willing to try it, but I don't know how much I like context-sensitive buttons, especially with Provoke and Shirk being the same button. I would, personally, prefer them being split.

[Terhix]

I'm saying that they shouldn't build tanks to conform to fixed templates, which is something that they've been doing since ARR. Creating a 'pure healer/shield healer' (WHM/SCH) style dichotomy for tanks isn't going to be any more groundbreaking for game design than it was for healers in 2021.

Ye, that's fair, although their goal with Evolved mode in general (rather than the tank split in particular) is to give jobs their identity back. We've seen one tank, we have only the vaguest idea what they want offtanks to do and no idea what they are doing with the 3 other individual tank jobs, for now I'll just wait and let them cook.

[Derio]

I'm guessing PLD is the benchmark tank. When you look at PLDs kit. It had everything they described for both MT and OT. This means the other tanks are getting sizeable reworks because every tank currently can lower boss damage and party damage with reprisal and their group mit, and every tank can reduce a single party member damage with their personal mits.

While I feel people fears are justified simply because SE did a poor job by showing only 1 tank and then stating you are going to split tanks into two roles which people cannot see their full vision for the role, especially if you do not play PLD.