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

[Mikey_R]

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.

But they cannot show everything in a short amount of time and, since this is the first time we have ever seen the new actions so soon into the fan fest cycle, I highly suspect they will take time to cover it in every fan fest, focusing on roles that haven't been seen. I can see then showcasing an off tank in Berlin to show the differences and it will be at that point that a more informed discussion can be had about what the split actually entails. At the moment, it is all speculation and the fact people have already assumed the worst, just makes no sense.

[Mukuku]

At the moment, it is all speculation and the fact people have already assumed the worst, just makes no sense.

The devs presented the roles with the names "Main Tank" and "Off Tank". It's not an unreasonable assumption to believe they actually mean "Main Tank" and "Off Tank"...

IMHO the opposite makes less sense: if they are using "Main Tank" and "Off Tank" why should we assume they mean something completely different?

[Mikey_R]

The devs presented the roles with the names "Main Tank" and "Off Tank". It's not an unreasonable assumption to believe they actually mean "Main Tank" and "Off Tank"...

IMHO the opposite makes less sense: if they are using "Main Tank" and "Off Tank" why should we assume they mean something completely different?

The devs have a habit of using a term, but it means something different to what the rest of the MMO community assume, the same is likely true here, especially when they have used the term MT and OT in the past in another expansion, and even there it was used differently.

The fact people are acting like the sky is falling just because of the terms. Popole are saying that OTs are not going to be able to tank a boss, that is just flat out wrong as it isn't going to be how the devs design them (tank swaps are common and even bosses that attack both tanks at the same time). With the many misunderstandings surrounding the term that run completely counter to how the devs handle things, there is clearly something that is missing.

The shown Paladin is shown to have tools that defend both themselves, a single party member and the entire party. There is some overlap there with what was presented on the slide, which means, this is not going to be a hard rule that is followed. Take a look at 'pure' and 'barrier' healers. White Mage and Astrologian have shields, Scholar and Sage both have straight heals, even in the form of a regen. Despite the devs making specific terms, there is still overlap, which is also still true in White Mage Evolved, as Aquaveil is a shield and damage reduction and they still have Temperance with the shield follow up.

Even if you want to ignore the fact the dev teams occasionally name things differently to other games, there is enough evidence that it isn't going to be what everyone thinks it is going to be. This is what many of us are trying to calm the initial emotional wave that is 'the sky is falling' and are deciding to wait until we know what the OT role will look like and then provide feedback at that time. Until that time though, everything anyone is saying about the OT role is pure speculation unless they are quoting the slide. So, is it really sensible to act like the sky is falling based off of pure speculation? Rationally, no.

[Mukuku]

Popole are saying that OTs are not going to be able to tank a boss, that is just flat out wrong as it isn't going to be how the devs design them

Nobody is saying that OTs will not be viable.

The main concern at least for me so far is whether the devs will push for "Main Tanks" being the "preferred", well, "Main Tanks" (shocking that people assume words mean what they mean....), especially if it's done with a damage penalty if they are not holding aggro and countering vs, "Off-Tanking".

Sure, it might be that "countering" will work off allies and that they are using the term "Main Tank" in a completely novel way that does not imply they are actually meant to "Main Tank", but that's a more far-fetched speculation IMHO.

In the meantime I hope my feedback reaches the devs that there are players which wish to play PLD and might want to prefer off-tanking, conversely that there are players playing DRK/WAR/GBR that might want to prefer main-tanking.

As long as that will be still possible without friction, I have no issue with them reworking the jobs.

[BabyYoda]

...

I think there is a fair point here, but I also think the concern is not unreasonable.

Yes, it is possible that the developers are using “Main Tank” and “Off Tank” differently from how the wider MMO community understands those terms. FFXIV has done that before with other role labels, and I agree that we should not immediately assume the worst.

However, I do not think players are wrong for being concerned when the official presentation itself uses the terms “Main Tank” and “Off Tank.” Those terms already have a very clear meaning to most MMO players. So if the developers are using them in a softer or different way, then they need to explain that clearly.

The problem is not that people are panicking for no reason. The problem is that the terminology creates uncertainty.

I agree that FFXIV will probably not design Off Tanks so they are unable to tank bosses. That would not make sense in a game with tank swaps, shared tankbusters, dual tank mechanics, and encounters where both tanks take responsibility. I also agree that there will probably be overlap, similar to pure healers and barrier healers.

But that is exactly why clarification is needed.

If “MT” and “OT” only mean design flavor or general tendency, then that is fine. For example, PLD may lean more toward self-defense and party protection, while another tank may lean more toward supporting the other tank or handling specific defensive situations.

But if “MT” and “OT” start to imply locked positions, duty expectations, or community pressure where certain tanks are treated as wrong for main tanking, then that becomes a real problem.

So I do not think the sky is falling, but I also do not think the concern should be dismissed.

The best version of this system would be:

* every tank can still MT
* every tank can still OT
* each tank has a stronger identity
* the difference is dynamic, not restrictive
* fights create moments where different tanks shine
* no job is locked into one position

That is the direction I hope they take.

The concern is not “Off Tanks will never tank.” The concern is that unclear role labels can lead to restrictive design or restrictive community expectations. That is why people are asking for clarification now, before the system is finalized.

[Mikey_R]

Nobody is saying that OTs will not be viable.

It was something that had been said to start with.

The main concern at least for me so far is whether the devs will push for "Main Tanks" being the "preferred", well, "Main Tanks" (shocking that people assume words mean what they mean....), especially if it's done with a damage penalty if they are not holding aggro and countering vs, "Off-Tanking".

Concerns are fine to have and you are free to express them, it is when people take it a step further and act like the concerns are actually how things are and create a false narrative based on that. Now, it might be that that is not the intent, and if it isn't, then people need to start wording their posts better.

In the meantime I hope my feedback reaches the devs that there are players which wish to play PLD and might want to prefer off-tanking, conversely that there are players playing DRK/WAR/GBR that might want to prefer main-tanking.

Which is a fine concern to have, however, again, we have no basis of what a 'Main' and 'Off' tank is and this is part of the reason why I say people act like the sky is falling. I'm a Gunbreaker and I want to MT, ok. DO you even know what that means? Do you think that means you just stand infront of the boss the whole time? Is that all it takes to be a 'Main' Tank in your eyes? If so, that clearly isn't the definition that SE is using. People have jumped to conclusions without knowing the facts.

As long as that will be still possible without friction, I have no issue with them reworking the jobs.

Which is still an unknown at this point, which is why we need to wait for more information.

However, I do not think players are wrong for being concerned when the official presentation itself uses the terms “Main Tank” and “Off Tank.” Those terms already have a very clear meaning to most MMO players. So if the developers are using them in a softer or different way, then they need to explain that clearly.

The fact is, they did explain their intent in the slide. The problem is people added meaning to it and made their own version which likely isn't how SE sees it.

The problem is not that people are panicking for no reason. The problem is that the terminology creates uncertainty.

Which is why I keep saying we do not have enough information and to not just judge this based on past experiences.

But that is exactly why clarification is needed.

Yes, but we aren't going to see anything until at least Berlin at the end of July. Expecting anything earlier is asking too much. I have predicted several times that they will show off an OT, specifically Warrior, at Berlin. At that point, we can compare and contrast the differences in the kits and have a bit of a clearer vision of what to expect. Even then, there are still going to be unknown, we won't know exact damage reductions as an example. Once we know in general what to expect, we can then provide better feedback based on actual examples that have been provided. End of July is still more than enough time for any changes to be made after all.

But if “MT” and “OT” start to imply locked positions, duty expectations, or community pressure where certain tanks are treated as wrong for main tanking, then that becomes a real problem.

Which could be a valid concern, but we need more info before we can predict whether it is going to be an issue.

The concern is not “Off Tanks will never tank.” The concern is that unclear role labels can lead to restrictive design or restrictive community expectations. That is why people are asking for clarification now, before the system is finalized.

The role labels are unclear as we only have part of half the picture, we need at least part of the other half to make a more accurate judgement.

Really, again, what we need to do is stop assuming certain things and then coming to a conclusion based on that assumption. All we know for certain is what is on the slide and even what we saw with Paladin could change. The fact Paladin is going to be using the basic 123 combo 3-4 times on average between each Impertaor is concerning, as that is going to get old fast.

[Evermomo]

End of July is still more than enough time for any changes to be made after all.

That's very optimistic of you. Release date of January 2027 is an incredibly tight deadline for redesigning all the existing jobs... they would have their work cut out for them even if they had presented this at the start of the year.

Either way, only the devs know what feedback is or isn't useful or accurate at this point. Let filtering it out be their job, not yours.

[BabyYoda]

...

I think you are missing the main point.

Nobody here is claiming we already know the final implementation. Of course we do not have the full picture yet. Everyone understands that more details may come in Berlin.

But “we need more information” does not mean players should stop giving feedback on the direction and terminology that was officially presented.

The developers used the labels “Main Tank” and “Off Tank.” Those are not neutral terms. They already carry meaning in the MMO community. If SE intends those terms to mean something softer, more flexible, or completely different from the common understanding, then that needs to be clarified.

Saying “people are adding meaning to it” is strange when the terms themselves already have meaning.

This is exactly how feedback works during development. Players see a direction, identify a possible problem, and raise concerns before the system becomes final. Waiting until everything is already fully implemented is not more rational. It is less useful.

Also, the concern is not simply whether an Off Tank can physically stand in front of the boss and survive. That is an oversimplification of the argument.

The concern is about friction.

Will certain tanks be numerically or mechanically encouraged to hold aggro more than others?
Will certain tanks lose value if they are not being directly attacked?
Will party finder expectations start treating some tanks as “wrong” for MT or OT?
Will fight design reward one category in one position more than the other?

Those are valid concerns based on the terms and the direction shown.

And yes, maybe SE will avoid all of that. Maybe MT and OT will only be loose design flavors with plenty of overlap. If so, great. That is exactly what many of us want.

But asking players not to discuss the potential issues until Berlin is basically saying feedback should only happen after the next marketing presentation. That makes no sense.

The whole point of early concern is to tell the developers:

Please do not make this restrictive.
Please do not lock jobs into positions.
Please do not create community pressure where PLD is expected to MT and GNB/WAR/DRK are expected to OT.
Please make tank identity dynamic, not positional.

So no, the sky is not falling. But pretending terminology does not matter until SE explains everything later is also not a strong argument.

If the system is flexible, they should say that clearly.
If the system is restrictive, players should push back now.

That is not panic. That is feedback.

[Carighan]

That's very optimistic of you. Release date of January 2027 is an incredibly tight deadline for redesigning all the existing jobs... they would have their work cut out for them even if they had presented this at the start of the year.

Either way, only the devs know what feedback is or isn't useful or accurate at this point. Let filtering it out be their job, not yours.

True, although I would say given the almost comically bad state of the current class design in FFXIV, randomly deleting 10 skills off of every job would still be a marked improvement (just as bad but with less buttons, some of which are statistically going to be oGCDs -> at least there's some less RSI). It will be almost impossible to make a setup that's worse than what we have right now, and the 4 jobs shown off show marked improvements compared to the current design, to a degree FFXIV has not achieved ever since it's (re-)release.

The biggest issue, after all, was that unlike other MMOs the devs never dared to do sweeping reworks. People call stuff like the Astro-changes to remove the randomness of the cards a "class rework", but it is only a rework in the context of FFXIV itself. It's tweaks and changes in other games, not an actual rework.

It seems the developers are often terminally afraid to undo any balance they have already achieved, even if they are clearly stuck in a local dead end. The new designs more or less ripping things out entirely is exactly the kind of change the game needs, and frankly needed 2-3 expansions ago already. I'll more than gladly accept massive balance issues. Seriously. I don't mind imbalances between classes in MMORPGs to begin with (maybe it's that I started with games where you had say, classes intentionally for solo play which in turn were useless in groups but then everyone else couldn't solo in the first place), and I rather have better and faster and more sweeping design iterations than numerical balance.

Especially in games where changing to the "current meta"-classes is as trivial as in FFXIV. I can trivially work around any imbalances for actually tougher content by just going and playing what currently works for that content.

[Mukuku]

It seems the developers are often terminally afraid to undo any balance they have already achieved.

That's because they know balance is more important than uniqueness. They know because they have learned that lesson the hard way.

I can trivially work around any imbalances for actually tougher content by just going and playing what currently works for that content.

That's a good example why it's not a good idea. You would have "unique" jobs that don't actually get to play that content. I don't see how anyone could think that would be a "win" for the game. Balance cannot be swept aside with "go play another job".

I understand the wish for "uniqueness", but we should also take into account the lessons from history. This is not 2007 WoW TBC and there is a reason class/job design moved away from that. The reason is that lack of balance in a MMO creates far more serious problems than lack of uniqueness does.