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

[Terhix]

This is a bit different. Your MT will want to have enmity for as long as possible to maximize their damage output. If there's a forced swap, your MT needs to swap back as soon as possible to get counterattack procs. If the MT is not the active tank, then they will likely be expected to stand in avoidable AoEs to proc their counterattack to avoid 'griefing' their party with lower damage. There will probably be entirely new 'MT uptime' variations to every strat with different swaps once people get their initial clears and want to maximize damage (and you know how well NA/EU PF handles variations in strategy). You will see lots of PF arguments over who gets to tank and for what parts and over how it impacts their personal damage. I don't even need to see that conflict arise to feel disappointed in it.

Going through the entire Arcadion:

M1S: there are swaps for busters but you swap back immediately.
M2S: MT actively tanks the whole fight.
M3S: 1 swap for a buster by convention.
M4S: 1 swap for a buster by convention.
M5S: MT actively tanks the whole fight.
M6S: desert patch might see MT lose uptime, not an issue with 2x20s gauge.
M7S: some tether swaps during which MT still takes damage.
M8S: 1 swap for a buster by convention.
M9S: MT actively tanks the whole fight.
M10S: MT actively tanks at least one of the bros.
M11S: MT actively tanks the whole fight.
M12S: MT only loses uptime for candies in P2, not an issue with 2x20s gauge.

12 savage fights, 13 if you count the door boss as a separate thing, and in none of them this would be an issue.

Ultimates tend to be a bit different, FRU certainly has some moments where depending on strat MT isn't actively tanking, but if you plan strats with Evo tanks in mind those are things that are easy to correct. Ultimates also generally blast the entire raid with damage so frequently you can probably have 2 MTs and still get all your counters in, sans complete downtime (boss not targetable).

I can see there might be places, especially in Extremes and below, where a tank with counters eats a vuln to get an extra counter in, but this is something that already happens - not for counters but for melee uptime. In EX5 it's a common practice to drop a short CD and eat a vuln during MM1 if it saves you uptime, some guides even recommend it! I'm not going to tell you that taking avoidable damage to do more dps is a good thing to do, but if you are against counters based on the fact that it might incentivize that behavior, you should also be against tanks losing melee uptime since it also incentivizes that behavior. We already had a whole expansion where melees (tanks included) virtually never lost uptime and decided that's bad for the game.

[Mukuku]

12 savage fights, 13 if you count the door boss as a separate thing, and in none of them this would be an issue.

Wouldn't that actually make things worse?

What is the answer to "DRK/WAR/GBR" which might want to MT or vice-versa? Today there might be a meta but the balance is so close that these players have options. Which options do they have once playing "off-subrole" leads to a significant loss in efficiency?

We already had a whole expansion where melees (tanks included) virtually never lost uptime and decided that's bad for the game.

100% uptime is not bad for the game. Achieving 100% uptime by designing bosses as mostly static with huge hitboxes is bad for the game.

IMHO players should achieve 100% uptime by proper boss positioning and movement, potentially adding a dimension to encounters and avenue for skill expression.

[Carighan]

Which options do they have once playing "off-subrole" leads to a significant loss in efficiency?

[citation needed]

Because the devs have said the difference will be small enough. Which the current differences also are. Which makes me wonder where you even get the idea from.

IMHO players should achieve 100% uptime by proper boss positioning and movement, potentially adding a dimension to encounters and avenue for skill expression.

So I have two thoughts about that:

* Okay, that still makes melee DPS as a role conceptually pointless as if they cannot ever lose uptime, that's no different than a caster that never has to cast (also a problem this game has) and is fully mobile.
* More importantly, do tell how you imagine this'd work.

[Mukuku]

[citation needed]

Because the devs have said the difference will be small enough. Which the current differences also are. Which makes me wonder where you even get the idea from.

What they stated at the Fan Fest, with emphasis mine:

High end content, such as Savage and Ultimate parties, these parties will be able to clear these duties far more efficiently by taking advantage of both the main and off role.

So the difference at the high end of the spectrum will not be "small enough", unless we have a different understanding of what "far more efficiently" means.

As of low level content, It's true they stated the difference should not matter that much there, but the issue IMHO is the DPS performance being tied to the role.

A difference in survivability or healing does become irrelevant. Once you can comfortably survive, more survivability/healing becomes basically worthless. A difference in DPS is never irrelevant as more DPS is always desirable even long after you have enough DPS to clear.

Okay, that still makes melee DPS as a role conceptually pointless as if they cannot ever lose uptime, that's no different than a caster that never has to cast (also a problem this game has) and is fully mobile.

What makes you think they cannot lose uptime? That you can achieve 100% uptime does not mean you would get that for free without any skill expression. Dealing with boss positioning and movement is a way to have another dimension and increase the skill expression potential for encounters.

More importantly, do tell how you imagine this'd work.

You can take inspiration from other MMOs to imagine how this could work. In WoW there are plenty of encounters where positioning and moving the boss is very important to optimize how mechanics can be resolved and how damage can be optimized.

It's a different game with different design, but it doesn't mean FFXIV cannot take some inspiration as they did and still are doing for some aspects of the game.

[Terhix]

Wouldn't that actually make things worse?

What is the answer to "DRK/WAR/GBR" which might want to MT or vice-versa? Today there might be a meta but the balance is so close that these players have options. Which options do they have once playing "off-subrole" leads to a significant loss in efficiency?

I've no idea what you're talking about, genuinely. Are you assuming MT will do more dps because they counter? If so, I've a bridge to sell you.

[Mikey_R]

When you look at partial Paladin footage and say the filler combo may become repetitive, that is “feedback.”

ARR Paladin was one combo over and over again, how many people complain that Dark Knight needs another combo? How about healers who want to do more than press the 1 button with the occasional other button. We have so many examples that spamming 1 attack/combo over and over is not the most exciting thing. The only reason you don't really feel it on Bard is because they have many different things to keep track of that you forget the filler is pressing 1 button. This then flies in opposition to:

When I look at the MT/OT direction and say the labels may become restrictive, suddenly that is “not feedback,” it is “questions,” “demands,” or apparently some kind of personal flaw.

Where we have 4 total bullet points and what we have seen from Paladin. We know nothing. You have no idea what an OT kit looks like, you do not know how it is going to handle things, you know nothing. Everything past the bullet points is speculation. There is no feedback to give, just questions to ask.

If you cannot see the difference, that is on you and maybe you should start thinking about what is actually said rather than what you think has been said. You have misquoted me several times on my views, including this one:

Feedback is not limited to finalized systems.

Which is never what I said at all. Again, failing to understand what has been said and the arguments being made does not help you at all.

You are not avoiding assumptions. You are just choosing the most flattering assumption possible and pretending that makes it more mature.

“My assumption that everything is probably fine is reasonable.”
“Your assumption that something could go wrong is premature.”

That is not objectivity. That is optimism wearing a fake mustache.

If that is what you got, you misunderstand my points. I am neutral on anything we haven't seen, which means I am not going to say it is all a bad idea in the same way I am not going to say it is a good idea. I know, novel right.

And the Party Finder point is even weaker.

No, developers cannot personally control every PF listing. Nobody said they could. That was never the argument.

Your argument was to ask the devs to not create community pressure where PLD has to MT and WAR/DRK/GNB have to OT. That is post 138.

Or, how about 'Do not turn MT/OT into another source of Party Finder policing.' in post 142, repeated in 153, 155, 173, and 189.

You are the one who bought this point up, all I have said is, the devs cannot control the playerbase and the playerbase will adapt. I do not see how you can argue with that.

If the system encourages rigidity, the community will not magically become philosophical and flexible. It will do what MMO communities always do: reduce the system into rules, expectations, and exclusion criteria.

This is not dramatic. This is basic MMO behavior.

But is that what you see at the moment? Do people only take specific jobs because they do the most damage? For the most part, no, only if there is a very very clear outlier. Do PF listings always have a barrier and pure healer only? No, they can mix it up depending on the content. The same thing is ging to happen here.

You also keep acting like people are saying the entire system is guaranteed to fail. That is not what is being said.

Again, never said that. Just said do not make assumptions about the system and doom and gloom over those assumptions. Wait for the information to come out and then give proper feedback.

You keep saying “wait and see” as if that is some profound position. It is not.

Unless the neutral position is now classed as 'profound', then no.

The interesting thing about this whole exchange is the fact it started as me saying to not make assumptions about things and then make comments based on that assumption. However, that is exactly what you have been doing to me. Regardless, I really do not care about responding any more, so I won't be.

[BabyYoda]

...

“I really do not care about responding anymore, so I won’t be.”

That is a very dramatic way of saying you wanted the last word without having to defend it.

And honestly, the timing is perfect.

You were very invested when the argument was “other people are making assumptions.” You had plenty of energy for “you misunderstood me,” “you misquoted me,” “you do not understand the argument,” and “that is on you.”

But the second your own assumptions get put under the same standard, suddenly the conversation is beneath you.

Very impressive neutrality.

The problem is simple: you are not against assumptions. You are against assumptions that make the system look risky.

When someone says MT/OT direction could create rigidity, that is speculation.
When you say the playerbase will adapt, PF will be fine, and people will mix roles depending on content, that is apparently neutral analysis.

That is not neutrality. That is your optimism wearing a referee shirt.

You keep trying to frame this as if people are saying “the system is guaranteed to fail.” They are not. That is just the version of the argument you need in order to sound reasonable.

The actual argument has been painfully simple:

A system can be interesting and still carry risks.
A design direction can be promising and still need clarification.
A community can adapt, but it can also reduce design incentives into rigid expectations.

This is basic MMO behavior. Players optimize. PF filters. Communities simplify. Metas form. Expectations harden. None of this requires the developers to personally control every listing.

So when you keep saying “the devs cannot control the playerbase,” you are not answering the point. You are dodging it with a sentence that sounds useful until someone reads it twice.

And the Paladin comparison still exposes the whole thing.

Partial Paladin footage is enough for feedback about possible repetition.
Official MT/OT bullet points are somehow not enough for feedback about possible restriction.

So your standard is not “do we have enough information?”
Your standard is “do I like the concern being raised?”

That is why this whole “wait and see” routine is not as neutral as you think it is.

“Wait and see” is the easiest position in any pre-release discussion. It costs nothing. It risks nothing. It contributes almost nothing. It lets you dismiss concerns before release and then act like nobody could have known afterward.

It is not analysis. It is just hiding behind uncertainty.

Feedback before release exists specifically because systems are not finalized yet. If we wait until everything is locked in, then feedback becomes postmortem commentary.

But sure, call it speculation if that makes the exit cleaner.

Just do not pretend leaving the conversation is some mic-drop moment.

It is not.

It is just you realizing that your entire argument depends on giving your own assumptions a nicer name than everyone else’s.

[Mukuku]

I've no idea what you're talking about, genuinely. Are you assuming MT will do more dps because they counter? If so, I've a bridge to sell you.

Except they showed exactly that during the Fan Fest when they showcased PLD? When using Sheltron the PLD did get the buff Surcoat of Satisfaction for 4 seconds and Surcoat of Answer after that for additional 4 seconds. Answering Strike did gets increased potency by blocking damage during Surcoat of Satisfaction. This means countering properly deals more damage than not countering or countering badly.

Unless you mean "more dps than OTs"? I don't know that, but I know that the devs intend to make using MT/OT "far more efficient" (their words). I don't know how yet, but unless they mess up and fail to achieve their intended design goal you will likely want both and you will likely want both playing in their assigned sub-roles.

[Carighan]

Except they showed exactly that during the Fan Fest when they showcased PLD?

Whatever floats your Doom Barge, I suppose. /shrug Did healers implode when they got split into regen and shield? No. Argument done, this isn't a doomsday moment.

you will likely want both and you will likely want both playing in their assigned sub-roles.

Well duh, yes. You just need to look at healers or DPS to know that. How is that even noteworthy?

[Terhix]

Except they showed exactly that during the Fan Fest when they showcased PLD? When using Sheltron the PLD did get the buff Surcoat of Satisfaction for 4 seconds and Surcoat of Answer after that for additional 4 seconds. Answering Strike did gets increased potency by blocking damage during Surcoat of Satisfaction. This means countering properly deals more damage than not countering or countering badly.

Unless you mean "more dps than OTs"? I don't know that, but I know that the devs intend to make using MT/OT "far more efficient" (their words). I don't know how yet, but unless they mess up and fail to achieve their intended design goal you will likely want both and you will likely want both playing in their assigned sub-roles.

Yes, I meant the latter: MT jobs will not do more dps than OT jobs just because they got a counter mechanic. I still don't know what you meant by "Wouldn't that actually make things worse?" with regard to MTs in savage being active tanks virtually all the time? If you bring an Evo MT and an Evo OT jobs into the party, the MT job has to main tank to get (most of) their counters in. If you don't like that design I think that's valid, your feedback is valid, and I've no issue with that at all.

We don't know what the efficiency is exactly, but we do know what it is roughly from that one slide. If you have two MT jobs you lose dps from one of them being in the OT position, and some mitigation from not having an OT job. If you bring two OT jobs the tanks and/or healers might do some extra work to account for slightly weaker personal mits. MT + OT gives you the best mits (both for raid and for the MT via their personals + OT debuff) and optimal dps. Double MT is probably going to be less viable than double OT, but as long as neither is better than the MT+OT that is fine: the same is true for healers currently where double barrier is generally more viable than double regen.