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

[Reinhardt_Azureheim]

The labels "Main Tank" and "Off Tank" used in their panel fundamentally are just names. What we consider a main tank or an off tank in actuality will likely differ anyhow.

Look at Evolved Paladin, the supposed "Main Tank" in that dichotomy. It still has Intervention (Holy Sheltron @ Ally), Divine Veil, Passage of Arms and Cover (Intervene @ Ally) - all the tools of why we consider Paladin to be a strong off-tank in the first place. Does this scream "this will never be used in an OT position" to you?

Likewise, you can make "Off Tanks" work as main tank. Those dichotomy labels are just that, labels - poorly picked ones that do not reflect position but rather functions of how mitigation may operate. Every tank will still have invulns and baseline mitigations (Rampart, 40%, Reprisal, likely a Short CD too).

Also, this is kinda whack to me considering how many see current Warrior as a de-facto Main Tank for the simple reasons like "this has the best sustain" and even just suggesting to play WAR in an OT position is seen as heresy. The only people enforcing MT and OT designation is us, the players.

You still wanna MT as WAR-DRK-GNB? You still wanna OT as PLD-newJob? Do it! It will most likely not even be bad at all.

[Rithy255]

The thing that is weird to me is that PLD keeps cover... actually no it has Cover on dash with no gauge cost which is far more useable so couldn't it pretty much function as a OT and take big hits for the tank whos holding aggro anyway, reducing damage on self? its got intervention and passage still It feels like a very weird categorisation of things to me. I do like the idea of war/drk/gnb having more debuffs on enemies but i dont think that would determin who's MT or OT Unless their self mitigation has become really lacking (which even then a good PLD can just take hard hits for you on off tank)

PLD still looks to me like a amazing OT option; heck even better now you can stock up your self mits and easily cover with no gauge cost for some tank busters, while also still having intervention and raid wides

It reminds me of the pure/shield healer split; its kinda pointless when they keep adding skills that cross over anyway.

[SalamanderIX]

Here's what we know so far, the Paladin has an ability that is a counter-attack. That would make it slightly more ideal in a main tank role.
Since we don't know the other tanks reasons to have these subroles, it's really hard to say. However, considering Paladin still had supportive abilities, it could still make a fine offtank. It'll probably just lose some DPS for doing so, or need to engage in a more deliberate fashion to offtank.
Could be the case with the other tanks too...

I'd recall in Stormblood, Dark Knight was almost exclusively an offtank otherwise you'd end up spending your offensive resources on defenses, TBN was thrown onto the main and not yourself. Well this was often the case. Maybe something like that happens again. And it wasn't like Dark Knight couldn't maintank, and it had more identity.

If it causes more job identity, then it is probably worth it.

[Mukuku]

I'd recall in Stormblood, Dark Knight was almost exclusively an offtank otherwise you'd end up spending your offensive resources on defenses, TBN was thrown onto the main and not yourself. Well this was often the case. Maybe something like that happens again. And it wasn't like Dark Knight couldn't maintank, and it had more identity.

What you are saying is that in Stormblood although "DRK could maintank", it was effectively "almost exclusively an offtank".

Assuming that's true, it is exactly what some players are concerned about: they don't want to be pigeonholed in a specific tank sub-role depending on their tank job.

[SalamanderIX]

What you are saying is that in Stormblood although "DRK could maintank", it was effectively "almost exclusively an offtank".

Assuming that's true, it is exactly what some players are concerned about: they don't want to be pigeonholed in a specific tank sub-role depending on their tank job.

I don't mean to say Stormblood was ideal, and there's more going on right now.
It's just that part of having job identity involves losing things. This is the trade-off of identity, some tanks need to be good at some things and lack some things, so they can not do everything, and specialize in certain aspects. We're also dealing with a new system. Any new system is going to be a trade-off and we have to sacrifice to get one.

So I believe we need to wait and see what they are doing. Most of us want change and identity, and some players are going to find it, or certain aspects unpleasant. I would rather choose to be mt or ot, but what I want even more is changes to a stale system and am willing to wait to get the *complete picture* before asking them to turn back.

[TouchandFeel]

I posted this in a different thread but this seems to be the thread with the most discussion on this.

I honestly don't think it's going to be as hard of a mt/ot split as many people are assuming.

From what has been shown so far, my guess is that it will likely be that the "mt" tanks will just have a few extra things around managing direct single-target damage, while the "ot" tanks will have a few extra things for managing AoE/multi-target damage.

For example, as shown at the panel and already pointed out in the thread, PLD can redirect the damage from a tankbuster hitting the other tank to themselves with Cover and still trigger their retaliation ability since they used Holy Sheltron on themselves. So, the PLD can still use their "MT" aspect of managing direct damage in the "OT" position.
Where it may be "less efficient" is simply that if the PLD had been in the "MT" position, they wouldn't have had to target the other tank and use Cover.

Since an example of one of the "OT" jobs hasn't been shown yet, it's hard to determine how exactly those will play in terms of how they may be helping manage AoE damage for the party. I really hope it's not just giving them an extra ability or button to press that just does it, that would be super boring.

That actually brings me to my potential biggest concern, which is disparity of fun and engagement between the MT/OT split.
They highlighted that the MT tanks will have this new retaliation mechanic based around well timed defensive abilities. That's super cool and will add extra engagement and skill to playing the MT tanks. As we haven't seen or been told much about the OT tanks, we don't know if there is any new game-play around their OT role similar to the retaliation mechanic of the MT role. It would really suck if there wasn't.

So, as others have said, I don't think it's going to be so much a "MT/OT" division but more of a division of a little extra for single-target damage vs a little extra for AoE damage and either of those can be used regardless of whether you are playing in the MT or OT position.

[Potchi]

I want to chime in here. Its interesting to hear people complaining about becoming off tanks because they find off tanking boring when they havent even seen what their job can do yet. There seems to be this phobia of “Main tank” being the star player and “Off Tank” being on the sidelines. Given, that is how it can feel off tanking on some jobs currently. (Hence why you see tanks fighting over hate in alliance raids).

The reality is, it isnt going to be too much different than what we have now. Sure you can main tank with every job, but hate to break it to you, some jobs are a lot more optimal at main tanking. If you are main tanking as Dark Knight, you are putting a lot more pressure on your healers as there is a common sentiment among healers of having to babysit a Drk. Drk does not have the mitigation or self sustain tools that jobs like War and Pld have. (One of my best friends mains Drk and we have been tanking together for 2 expansions now. And after stress testing have confirmed this with our static).

New system comes out, you will still be able to be a suboptimal main tanking if you want (I would mention reborn mode here but people seem to want to pretend it doesn't exist). I realize this comment might upset some people, but I really think people should stop pulling out the torches and pitchforks until we see what the off tanks can do now. I will be the first to say that if off tanking stays as it is now then I agree with everyone here that this sucks.

BUT! If this leads to job diversity and giving tanks actual identity and uniqueness then I am 100% for this change. We need this desperately and for those of you who feel strongly about wanting to stay main tank, would ask that you take a breath and wait to reserve final judgement until we see what the off tanks can do.

For those saying to give the tanks freedom to switch between main tank and off tank, I am against this as well. As soon as you do that, why cant white mage have a slider to switch between pure healer and shield healer? Once you do that, jobs start losing identity again. When square enix mentioned player freedom, it was for character expression and how to manage your time, not for a job being able to be played however it wants leading to identity crisis and homogenization. You are taking things out of context.

So let’s all wait and see what the other tanks can actually do and if the off tank gameplay looks fun. Otherwise, you are basing your complaint on a title alone, and hate to say it but that just becomes a “No! I’m the Star Player!” complaint with no real substance.

[Yuoaman]

BUT! If this leads to job diversity and giving tanks actual identity and uniqueness then I am 100% for this change. We need this desperately and for those of you who feel strongly about wanting to stay main tank, would ask that you take a breath and wait to reserve final judgement until we see what the off tanks can do.

For those saying to give the tanks freedom to switch between main tank and off tank, I am against this as well. As soon as you do that, why cant white mage have a slider to switch between pure healer and shield healer? Once you do that, jobs start losing identity again. When square enix mentioned player freedom, it was for character expression and how to manage your time, not for a job being able to be played however it wants leading to identity crisis and homogenization. You are taking things out of context.

So let’s all wait and see what the other tanks can actually do and if the off tank gameplay looks fun. Otherwise, you are basing your complaint on a title alone, and hate to say it but that just becomes a “No! I’m the Star Player!” complaint with no real substance.

We wanted them to strengthen job identity, not wipe the slate clean and create new identities that weren't there before.

Additionally, it doesn't matter to me what the off-tank gameplay looks like whatsoever, the parts of the main tank gameplay that appeal to me are managing the boss' position, and managing my own survival as I take devastating attacks, and these changes seem poised to make this not a part of my optimal kit.

[Jeeqbit]

The community has socially designated certain tanks MT or OT in the past, before they started making both tanks do the same thing a lot. I can't see any disadvantage to OTs being MT, since they will have to do it in dungeons anyway.

[Sazuzaki]

I find it weird how people are thinking that OTs won't be able to MT at all. I think it's fine to make predictions, but saying OT's won't be able to take aggro at all is funny to me because we haven't even seen the OT kits yet and knowing that tank swap mechanics probably aren't going anywhere just points to OT just being a weird naming scheme.

The MT title is really only going to barely restrict the tanks that have counter-attacks, and even then PLD will have ways to counter when not holding aggro. That being said, I actually think designing a tank to be good at everything restricts their design more than if you let it specialize.