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

[Mukuku]

So they're clearly aware of the concerns, all the way up to Yoshi, but seem determined in their direction regardless. If they can make off-tanking fun on its own rather than just being the same role as MT but with fewer responsibilities (with very few exceptions like P2 in TEA) that sounds good to me. Whether they will succeed or not time will only tell.

There is too little info to know. To be honest if the counter can proc off other party members I still don't understand exactly what makes holding aggro relevant. I don't see why they cannot devise a system that is aggro-agnostic and avoid a lot of drama, but maybe it's exactly how it will be and we are worrying for nothing.

[DjGameKing]

I agree with Carighan's assessment. Plus, I do think there is a little bit of grace to be given to the devs when the tanks before ShB were consistently in a state of complete disaster when they did have job identity.

* Launch ARR: WAR is so unplayable that they basically don't exist, double PLD is meta.
* 2.1 and onward: WAR so giga buffed it was arguable whether double WAR is actually better, but generally both tanks play together fine.
* HW: do I even need to bring this one up? PLD so down in the dumpster it repeatedly got locked out of PF groups and this wasn't because of its damage (which was also bad). It was because HW was obsessed with doing magic damage from enemies and PLD was a physical mitigation tank. WAR was god king tank, now the definitive tank you weren't ever replacing, especially since it didn't care what damage was being thrown at it. DRK was really good because it was the magic damage tank in the magic damage expansion.
* Launch SB: WAR was terrible, honestly down in the dumps. PLD got so buffed, they essentially swapped places with where WAR was during HW. DRK was mostly vibing, but people didn't like it compared to HW much.
* 4.1 SB: WAR got buffed a ton, it was quite good at this point. PLD got slapped down a little, but nothing too bad. DRK remained the same.
* 4.2 and onward: WAR got changed into the job we know it today basically and was on top once more. PLD still very good, it just got shot for its damage again. DRK same old, same old, despite appearing in O4S, UCoB and UWU world firsts.
* 5.0 until today: all tanks basically get their final iterations. PLD gets reworked at 6.3 because it did quite bad into the burst meta that existed in EW.

Even in my write up, SB was relatively fine for the tanks when looking at them objectively, but that didn't mean that people actually liked all tanks. This is the fabled time they had job identity. We can argue that this is the best, most interesting time for these jobs, since they were actually allowed to be different. I'd slightly argue against that last part, since even in this period, tanks mostly were similar in stuff like how to stay alive, but whatever.

Tanks could be different without this split, don't get me wrong, but the reality is that they likely wouldn't be. Whether that is because the devs refuse to have them different or whether that is that the devs pivot after the community has abandoned one tank for an entire expansion again... again. So I would rather them try this, hopefully make the tanks interesting enough from their damage profiles while also giving them their own boxes to fill with the subroles.

Also, like Carighan said: Evolved MT/OT =/= MT/OT role assignments. If anything, we might finally rename these spots to T1 and T2 to fall more in line with everyone else.

[Carighan]

Also, like Carighan said: Evolved MT/OT =/= MT/OT role assignments. If anything, we might finally rename these spots to T1 and T2 to fall more in line with everyone else.

Now that you mention that, it's so weird that we don't do that already. We don't say PR and MR, we say R1 and R2. We don't say RH and SH, we say H1 and H2. We don't name raid positions after raid roles!

So why do we say MT and OT instead of T1 and T2?!

[Mukuku]

So why do we say MT and OT instead of T1 and T2?!

Arguably only the tank that holds aggro is effective "tanking the boss", while the other is effectively not tanking and waiting for their turn, e.g. a tank swap or adds etc... Hence "main" and "off".

Note that this makes the tank situation fundamentally different form other roles. E.g. between R1/R2/M1/M2 all can deal damage to the boss at the same time, so by design damage dealers don't get in a "main/off" relationship between each other as tanks do.

That's why IMHO it can be problematic to compare the tank roles' split to other roles in terms of impact, unless the devs are using "main/off" in a somewhat novel way that does not imply having or not having aggro.

[Carighan]

Note that this makes the tank situation fundamentally different form other roles. E.g. between R1/R2/M1/M2 all can deal damage to the boss at the same time, so by design damage dealers don't get in a "main/off" relationship between each other as tanks do.

We already have comparable splits though, between the melee and the ranged DPS (who need specific positions that in fact the fights are specifically designed to support) and between the two healers. And yet we don't say "SH" and "RH", we just say H1 and H2.

[Mukuku]

We already have comparable splits though, between the melee and the ranged DPS (who need specific positions that in fact the fights are specifically designed to support) and between the two healers. And yet we don't say "SH" and "RH", we just say H1 and H2.

IMHO it's not really comparable. When I am not currently tanking I don't think "I am tanking in a different way": I think "I am currently not tanking, until we swap".

[Pixieh]

Just meh. This has entirely killed my desire to main my gunbreaker any longer. I don't need nor want to be hero all the time but sometimes it feels good to step up when the other tank is new to a duty and doesn't want to main tank. However getting shoehorned into NEVER being the hero, aka actively tanking a duty? Yeah sorry, I didn't sign up to be a budget tank.

Maining BLM now. Sorry for adding to the tank shortage, blame SE.

[Lyth]

Support role design has a lot of redundancy built into it. The devs don't want players to fail casual content on account of a support issue. Your active tank has an understudy. Your healers have on-demand raises for the understudy if they die. Your tanks can self-heal and your casters have a raise if your healers die. Everyone else has phoenix down if all the raise-capable jobs die. Players are well aware of this and don't want to be a permanent understudy just because they didn't want to pick PLD or Cannon PLD.

In the case of tanks, raid plan positions are necessarily the same as sub-roles if you have an obligate main tank and off tank. The boss faces in the direction of the active tank, and tankbusters are centred on the active tank. If you're an obligate MT, then you don't get to choose your position, because your position dictates everyone else's.

I'm more concerned that things won't work out that the way that the devs expect, however. The evolved PLD demonstration seems to have all the same capabilities that the current PLD does, without any skills removed. If the counter is the only differentiating factor, then your tank combination will be decided on by tank dps output. If counters add a lot of extra damage output, then you'll just run two main tanks. You don't have to be tanking to proc a counter, because you can just as easily proc Answering Strike off of a raidwide. If counters don't offer a clear damage advantage, then you'll just run double off tank to avoid locking your dps behind landing counters. This will be especially true if the off tanks retain their invulns, because all three of them have shorter invuln recasts than PLD.

The main rationale for groups running a main tank/off tank combination in the way that the devs envision would be if it was enforced (i.e. there's an LB penalty for running two main tanks or two off tanks). But I don't see that happening given the shortage of people wanting to play tanks in the first place. This just seems like a bad time regardless of whether they are successful in making players change how they play or not.

IMHO it's not really comparable. When I am not currently tanking I don't think "I am tanking in a different way": I think "I am currently not tanking, until we swap".

This is correct. I think if they want this to be successful, they need to change their fight design philosophy entirely.

[Tagihi]

There is a lot of negative feedback on this, but I think there is a reason behind it.
I never back down from changes.
While all tanks can still be MT (Main Tank), I think Paladin is going to be superior with the new evolved counter-stance attacks in raids against hard-hitting tank busters.

[Kishin12345]

Just meh. This has entirely killed my desire to main my gunbreaker any longer. I don't need nor want to be hero all the time but sometimes it feels good to step up when the other tank is new to a duty and doesn't want to main tank. However getting shoehorned into NEVER being the hero, aka actively tanking a duty? Yeah sorry, I didn't sign up to be a budget tank.

Maining BLM now. Sorry for adding to the tank shortage, blame SE.

That is the problem with my group now, too
Both tanks are very worried and despise the tank split already.
They both announced that they will very likely retire from tanking.
So we are unfortunately tankless now
The removal of tank stances is equally dumb. Like what do they even expect at this point? Spam provoke every 30 seconds or what?
Not a single tank i know thinks anything good will come from this. It will just be that all main tanks play the same way and all off tanks play the same way.