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

[BabyYoda]

...

I think you are trying very hard to redefine what feedback means just so you can dismiss it.

Feedback is not only a reaction to finalized tooltips, exact potencies, or a playable build. That is closer to a post-release bug report.

Feedback can be about direction, terminology, design risks, and the possible consequences of what was officially shown.

You keep repeating “we need more information” as if that somehow deletes the concern. It does not. It only proves the point: if the terminology is vague enough that people are confused, then asking for clarification and raising risks is valid feedback.

You say we cannot give feedback because we do not know enough.

Then you also say MT/OT roles are coming regardless.

So again, which one is it?

If we do not know enough, then players are right to ask for clarification.

If the roles are already coming regardless, then players are even more right to give feedback before those roles become a problem.

You cannot use “we do not know enough” to shut down criticism, while also using “this is coming regardless” to defend the system. That is not caution. That is just moving the goalpost.

Also, calling this “not feedback” is honestly bizarre.

Telling the developers:

“Please do not make this restrictive.”
“Please do not make tanks lose value outside their assigned label.”
“Please do not let MT/OT become Party Finder policing.”
“Please make tank identity dynamic through gameplay instead of fixed through labels.”

That is feedback.

You may not like the feedback, but not liking it does not magically turn it into “not feedback.”

And no, nobody is claiming the final system is doomed. Nobody is saying an Off Tank will explode if it touches the boss. That is a very convenient version of the argument to respond to, but it is not the actual argument.

The concern is friction.

Design friction.
Community friction.
Role expectation friction.
Meta friction.

If SE labels one group as MT and another as OT, then designs their kits in a way that rewards those labels, the community will follow that. That is how metas are created. Acting like developers have no influence over community behavior through terminology, tuning, and encounter design is just unrealistic.

You are treating the unknown as a reason to stop discussing risks.

I am treating the unknown as the reason to raise those risks early.

That is the difference.

If SE already plans to make the system flexible, then great. This feedback supports that direction.

If they do not, then this feedback is exactly the kind of thing that should be said before the system is locked in.

Waiting until everything is finalized before giving feedback is not “being rational.” It is just making the feedback less useful.

So no, this is not panic.

This is not fantasy.

This is not people inventing a problem out of nowhere.

This is players looking at official terminology, seeing obvious design risks, and saying:

Please do not let this become restrictive.

That is exactly how development feedback works.

[Mikey_R]

I think you are trying very hard to redefine what feedback means just so you can dismiss it.

Not dismiss, call it what it is. I said it was a list of concerns, that is hardly dismissing it.

Feedback is not only a reaction to finalized tooltips, exact potencies, or a playable build. That is closer to a post-release bug report.

Feedback needs to based on some factual information, not potential speculation.

Feedback can be about direction, terminology, design risks, and the possible consequences of what was officially shown.

You don't know the direction, you don't know how well the terminology fits, you don't know the design risks, you do not know the possible consequences with an sort of accuracy, therefore, not feedback.

You keep repeating “we need more information” as if that somehow deletes the concern. It does not. It only proves the point: if the terminology is vague enough that people are confused, then asking for clarification and raising risks is valid feedback.

I never said it deletes the concern, just reminding that you aren't going to get more info until at least Berlin.

You say we cannot give feedback because we do not know enough.

Then you also say MT/OT roles are coming regardless.

So again, which one is it?

We do not now enough, but we do know that the MT/OT split is, as of this post, coming to EC.

At this point, I'm more interested in what you think the MT/OT role is actually going to play in FFXIV, as you seem to have some sort of picture already.

[BabyYoda]

...

I think this is where the disagreement is becoming circular.

You keep trying to separate “concerns” from “feedback,” but in development discussions, concerns about an officially presented direction are feedback.

SE officially used the terms MT and OT.
SE officially presented them as different tank directions.
SE showed Paladin as the MT example.
SE stated this split is part of the coming design direction.

That is factual information.

I am not inventing a system from nothing. I am responding to the terminology and direction that were officially shown.

You seem to be setting an impossible standard where feedback is only valid once we know every tooltip, potency, encounter design, and final implementation detail. But by that point, the feedback is already far less useful.

That is not a serious standard for development feedback.

Early feedback is not supposed to be a final verdict. It is supposed to identify risks before they become baked into the system.

You ask what I think MT/OT will mean in FFXIV. I am not claiming to know the final answer. That is exactly why I am asking for clarification and raising risks.

The risks are simple:

If MT means a tank gains more value while holding aggro, that can create friction.

If OT means a tank gains more value while not holding aggro or supporting the other tank, that can create friction.

If PLD is labeled MT and other tanks are labeled OT, Party Finder may turn those labels into expectations.

If a job feels worse when played outside its assigned label, that becomes restrictive even if it is still technically playable.

That is the point.

You keep responding as if I said, “The final system is confirmed to be bad.” I did not.

I am saying, “This direction has obvious risks, so please avoid making it restrictive.”

That is feedback.

You can call it concerns, feedback, risk analysis, or whatever term you prefer. The label does not change the substance.

The substance is this:

Do not make MT/OT a restrictive role split.
Do not make tanks lose value outside their assigned label.
Do not create another source of Party Finder policing.
Do not make job identity come from labels instead of gameplay.

Make every tank capable of both roles, but give each tank a different defensive identity and gameplay style.

If SE already plans to do that, great. Then this feedback supports that direction.

If they do not, then this is exactly the kind of feedback that should be given now, not after the system is already locked in.

So no, I am not pretending to know the final design.

I am pointing out the risks of the direction shown so far.

That is not speculation replacing facts. That is feedback based on the facts currently available.

[Mikey_R]

You seem to be setting an impossible standard where feedback is only valid once we know every tooltip, potency, encounter design, and final implementation detail. But by that point, the feedback is already far less useful.

Far 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.

Early feedback is not supposed to be a final verdict. It is supposed to identify risks before they become baked into the system.

...

The risks are simple:

If MT means a tank gains more value while holding aggro, that can create friction.

If OT means a tank gains more value while not holding aggro or supporting the other tank, that can create friction.

If PLD is labeled MT and other tanks are labeled OT, Party Finder may turn those labels into expectations.

If a job feels worse when played outside its assigned label, that becomes restrictive even if it is still technically playable.

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.

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.

I am saying, “This direction has obvious risks, so please avoid making it restrictive.”

That is feedback.

Request.

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.

[Carighan]

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.

That'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).

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.

[BabyYoda]

...

I think this discussion is turning into a vocabulary lesson instead of a design discussion.

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.