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

[whiskeybravo]

I'm sorry, but you can even have equivalent hotbar setups on all 4 tank classes.They all use the same basic structure, too. They all share:

Not really. Looking out the airplane window from 5 miles up is not the same view you get on the ground. Yes, you can say WAR/DRK and PLD/GNB are closer in design to each other but in actual play they are still all quite different, particularly at the higher end where the nuances in playstyle are more pronounced. I'm a much better WAR than PLD because I've spent 1000s of hours on WAR and NOT on PLD. Maybe some gifted types could hop around and preform at similar levels, but as far as my experience goes that's pretty rare. A 95% DRK might never be able to be a 95% GNB. Even with "virtually identical hotbars/combo/cd structures". Not without actually putting in the time to figure out it's unique nuances.

This idea that tanks are overly homogenous, just from my perspective, is an overly reductionist idea. And a bad one most of the time because people will just keep "reducing" until it agrees with their argument. It's low-resolution view from 5 miles up. At least, that's what it looks like to me.

[Mikey_R]

This is.. not a good reason. Mainly being that, outside of having similar defensive cooldown structure the tanks don't actually play identically at all. Nevermind that at least half of that defensive homogenization is due encounter design itself (TBs/raidwide patterns). Pretty delusional justification imo. OK, MT get's counter-attack, what changes for OT? Absolutely nothing except losing the flexibility to efficiently partake in either function.

I do agree with you to an extent, for example, defensive capabilities being similar is needed in order to properly create fights, but but there is a case to be made for tanks becoming too similar. A good example is Gunbreaker moving from a unique rotation, where it had different odd and even minutes rotations to one that is the same every minute. However, what I have said is that unique aspects for each tank should be enhanced and highlighted, for example, Paladin is the only tank that can spend an extended time away from an enemy during a burst phase and even moving the ranged attacks within the window without losing any damage.

My hope is, with the removal of the 2 minute meta and the more flexible nature of the jobs we have seen, these more interesting traits can be highlighted better. With Imperator being on a 40 second cooldown and stacking to 2 charges, Paladin has more of a chance to show off that unique aspect of still doing damage at range.

This idea that tanks are overly homogenous, just from my perspective, is an overly reductionist idea. And a bad one most of the time because people will just keep "reducing" until it agrees with their argument. It's low-resolution view from 5 miles up. At least, that's what it looks like to me.

Unfortunately, it is a common sentiment that is spread everywhere, sometimes to the point where the overly broad statement means something completely different to what is actually meant. The big one for me is the all too common, 'all jobs play the same'. As a statement, that is clearly wrong, however, where this statement came from was the fact that every job is designed to fit into the 2 minute meta. This meant the flow of the jobs felt too similar to each other with most bursting every minute and all bursting every 2. You can see how the statement was reduced from the more nuanced take to to where it ended up, the problem is the meaning was lost along the way.

[Sazuzaki]

From my perspective, tanks only differ through very small optimizations. When people say the tanks are overly homogenous, they aren't saying they play exactly the same. They say that they are too similar, which I agree with. When it comes to differences, PLD does have range, GNB is active and busy with gnashing fang, WAR has lifesteal, and DRK stockpiles mana. However, DRK and WAR have identical gauges and skills, all tanks have a one-minute burst that centers around mashing one GCD button, they share very similar core mitigation skills like Heart of Light and Dark Missionary, they all share a 1-2-3 combo that unlocks other skills, etc. If you can play one tank, you've basically learned how to play all of them at a base level. I think they deserve more depth than that. Do I think tanks are different? Sure, but not different enough. To me, they feel like different specs of the same base job.

I'd agree more with your take if this were Shadowbringers where the only two similar tanks were DRK and WAR. Your take is valid, but the 2-min meta really exasperated the issue of homogenization. High-end content only makes up for a small bit in the grand scheme of FFXIV, so more often than not, the tanks feel pretty similar in things like roulettes, alliance raids, field ops, things like that.

[Carighan]

This idea that tanks are overly homogenous, just from my perspective, is an overly reductionist idea. And a bad one most of the time because people will just keep "reducing" until it agrees with their argument. It's low-resolution view from 5 miles up. At least, that's what it looks like to me.

Fair enough, although I have the exact opposite experience, tanks are the only role where I can readily play all four because of just how carbon-copy they are. I can't even do this with the healers (my main used to be SGE) because while they are also strongly homogenized, their unique aspects are fully unique (as in, they're used in different situations, not equivalent like say the 40% CDs on Tanks are).

But yeah, fair enough.

[whiskeybravo]

To the extent that jobs are designed to fulfill distinct roles, some homogeneity is necessary. What doesn't really follow is how much variety they managed to create with other roles, taking either the melee or phys ranged roles in particular - which are all pretty distinct compared to each other - and looking at the complete lack of ingenuity when it comes to tanks.

Regardless, the solution (to me at least) won't be found by splitting OT/MT roles. There are plenty of other directions they could go in without pidgeon-holing specific tank jobs into one or the other "nuanced" differences. It seems pretty similar to the change with shield vs regen healers, where it kind of makes sense on paper but in actual play it doesn't amount to much difference. Certainly not a prohibitive factor. So it's likely this split will be the same thing, not enough to be prohibitive but also not enough to make much difference on it's own. It's an entirely detached argument from the notion of having better/more interesting job design. Like, the foundation isn't even there for that to be the case.

[Sazuzaki]

As others have said, the split is there probably so they can use mechanics like counterattacks and such without having all of the tanks fight for aggro for the DPS gain. If they're going to commit to the split, I hope they'll go further in the idea of taking damage to deal damage; something like a reverse Wildfire where the more hits you take, the higher the potency of the attack. Vice versa with the OTs and the way they play. I think if they nail this, it could do a lot to break up the years of stagnation that we've seen with tank design.

[Mukuku]

As others have said, the split is there probably so they can use mechanics like counterattacks and such without having all of the tanks fight for aggro for the DPS gain.

That would not solve the problem in the duty finder unless they enforce the split there too, which I don't see happening.

If they're going to commit to the split, I hope they'll go further in the idea of taking damage to deal damage; something like a reverse Wildfire where the more hits you take, the higher the potency of the attack. Vice versa with the OTs and the way they play. I think if they nail this, it could do a lot to break up the years of stagnation that we've seen with tank design.

Good old Vengeance in WoW MoP... Very fun times as Blood DK main, but there are good reasons it got scrapped.

The lesson learned is yet again and again: if you tie DPS to something, expect the players to abuse it.

While tying DPS to taking damage sounds interesting on paper, that would incentivize players taking damage, which is really not a good idea.

[Mikey_R]

That would not solve the problem in the duty finder unless they enforce the split there too, which I don't see happening.

That's no difference to now though, the have said the DF does try and put a pure and shield healer together and try to get at least 1 melee, 1 caster and 1 phys ranged (or at least keep 2 different flavours of DPS in 4 man) when making parties. Of course, they are going to add contingencies so a role doesn't potentially end up in purgatory, not able to get in a party, but this will be no different if they added this for tanks.

[whiskeybravo]

As others have said, the split is there probably so they can use mechanics like counterattacks and such without having all of the tanks fight for aggro for the DPS gain. If they're going to commit to the split, I hope they'll go further in the idea of taking damage to deal damage; something like a reverse Wildfire where the more hits you take, the higher the potency of the attack. Vice versa with the OTs and the way they play. I think if they nail this, it could do a lot to break up the years of stagnation that we've seen with tank design.

That's one take. Or it could be not damage based at all and just a "counter" for additional mitigations. They already yeeted Shield Swipe long ago, bringing it back isn't going to cure "years of stagnation". And again, say they do "nail it", it's only Main Tanks that get to enjoy less stagnation?

If they do end up "nailing it", then yea we might look back and say it was a good idea. Otherwise it's not really a given that it will be better or more interesting for either (or both) role(s).

[Sazuzaki]

They already yeeted Shield Swipe long ago, bringing it back isn't going to cure "years of stagnation". And again, say they do "nail it", it's only Main Tanks that get to enjoy less stagnation?

That's the thing my guy, we literally do not know. I understand the concern surrounding it and see it as an open discussion, but I do see a lot of people acting... disingenuous. If the counter is nothing more than a Shield Swipe? Yeah, that would suck, but you should try to consider other possibilities as well. From what I've seen, it definitely hits harder than Shield Swipe and grants a buff of some sort. Is it a damage buff? It would probably be used in unison with your burst; get the counter buff and then try to fit as much damage into that buff as possible like if FoF was tied to your counter. It could also be a regen, which would be kind of boring, but who knows? You're right that it could be total butt cheeks, but it could be pretty cool as well. We can't even say if it'll only be MTs that get less stagnation because they didn't show any OTs. However, I stay hopeful due to them putting more emphasis on job identity.

I did want to point out how you criticize the idea of people saying tanks being overly homogenized as an overly reductionist idea, but you're doing exactly that right here with by just assuming the new counter would be nothing more than Shield Swipe.