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

[Carighan]

Exactly. Plus it assumes that the new fights don't all do double-tank-attacks (I kinda hope they do? It's boring being OT at all times if the boss just hits 1 target). If all EC+ fights do, then this is all kinda a non-issue anyways.

[Mukuku]

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.

That's exactly what I meant.

We don't know what the efficiency is exactly.

Agree, but we know that the statement is "far more efficient". Not "slightly more", not "a little more".

Assuming the devs will not fail with balance, this will mean:

• There will be a strong incentive in bringing both MT and OT
• There will be a strong incentive in the MT being the "main tank" holding aggro for most of the time.

The consequence of that is that "OT" tanks will find much less opportunities to "main tank" and vice-versa, which you seem to agree it's going to be by design. I find such design concerning.

[Carighan]

The consequence of that is that "OT" tanks will find much less opportunities to "main tank" and vice-versa, which you seem to agree it's going to be by design. I find such design concerning.

Why?

Or rather, I should say, is that a universal concern?

If yes: Does that mean you don't enjoy any current DPS that isn't PRanged, and also don't enjoy neither healer? And also, how do you square having that concern with the fact that the game clearly seems to be healthy despite the same split also being long-applied to those roles?
If no: Why not? How come this is universally only a problem for tanks, despite both other roles showing that this does not blow up the role or its balancing?

[Mukuku]

Or rather, I should say, is that a universal concern?

It's actually universal. I don't think the game should move even more toward fixed sub-roles.

In general I don't like the "you should bring 1 of each" design philosophy, because it effectively means telling the player "bring the job needed, not necessarily the job you might prefer to play".

While there is always going to be some structure vs. flexibility, IMHO the devs' design should focus on "bring the job you prefer to play, we will make sure it will do great". A 2T/2H/4D comp would have structure but more flexibility than a 1MT-1OT/1PH-1BH/2MD-1CD-1RD comp.

I also believe it's used as way to cover for balance issues for the individual jobs instead of properly addressing them. If parties would e.g not want a physical ranged DPS and would rather have another melee instead, the issue is in the jobs' balance.

Said that, again, a lot of this is speculation. Maybe they will show OT and clarify further what they want to achieve and a lot of opinions will change, mine included.

[Terhix]

Agree, but we know that the statement is "far more efficient". Not "slightly more", not "a little more".

We also know that their intention is for this to not matter outside of Savage and Ultimates, and they have explicitly compared the tank split to healer split, so we do have some metric by which to gauge how much this will matter. I reckon EX PF will also expect both tank types just as it does for for healers even if it's not a big deal.

Assuming the devs will not fail with balance, this will mean:

• There will be a strong incentive in bringing both MT and OT
• There will be a strong incentive in the MT being the "main tank" holding aggro for most of the time.

The consequence of that is that "OT" tanks will find much less opportunities to "main tank" and vice-versa, which you seem to agree it's going to be by design. I find such design concerning.

Yep, it 100% is the design's intended purpose. I don't care if I'm the MT or the OT, I just want my job to be interesting and for tanks in general to be dehomogenized. This design direction opens a lot of design space that's currently unavailable because all tanks are required to function as both MT and OT. Counter attacks is one example, another would be DRK spending HP, which is the most iconic thing about DRK as a job in FF games prior to XIV and PvP DRK in XIV since revamp - it's not something you want on MT, but OT spending HP and then self-healing back in cycles would be totally fine as long as you don't do it during a buster.

[Mukuku]

We also know that their intention is for this to not matter outside of Savage and Ultimates, and they have explicitly compared the tank split to healer split, so we do have some metric by which to gauge how much this will matter. I reckon EX PF will also expect both tank types just as it does for for healers even if it's not a big deal.

I think it would not be such a big deal if it didn't have a damage component. IMHO this is what makes the change more problematic. That's why I don't think the healer split is a good comparison as it lacked that component.

Yep, it 100% is the design's intended purpose. I don't care if I'm the MT or the OT, I just want my job to be interesting and for tanks in general to be dehomogenized.

I'm definitely curios in what they will change for OTs. Said that, if in the name of dehomogenization someone's favourite job will end up being subpar they will likely be first in line asking for it getting the tools that make the other job great.

[Terhix]

I think it would not be such a big deal if it didn't have a damage component. IMHO this is what makes the change more problematic. That's why I don't think the healer split is a good comparison as it lacked that component.

The only content where dps matters (let alone tank dps) is content where players have complete control over what jobs they bring, you will never find yourself in an Extreme, let alone Savage or Ultimate, with two MT jobs by accident.

[Mukuku]

The only content where dps matters (let alone tank dps) is content where players have complete control over what jobs they bring, you will never find yourself in an Extreme, let alone Savage or Ultimate, with two MT jobs by accident.

"Matters to clear the content" vs. "matters to the player" are two very different things.

[Sazuzaki]

It definitely matters to me that tanks have a strong identity and vary in playstyle, even if that comes with its drawbacks.

[Carighan]

In general I don't like the "you should bring 1 of each" design philosophy, because it effectively means telling the player "bring the job needed, not necessarily the job you might prefer to play".

While there is always going to be some structure vs. flexibility, IMHO the devs' design should focus on "bring the job you prefer to play, we will make sure it will do great". A 2T/2H/4D comp would have structure but more flexibility than a 1MT-1OT/1PH-1BH/2MD-1CD-1RD comp.

That's a fair take, and I apologize. Universally applied that's a solid idea. I kinda like that conceptually too, I will however say that from... ouff, by now nearly 30 years of playing MMORPGs ( :scream: ), I more think it won't work, at least not... not truly.

I mean hell, even GW2 kinda has roles, and that's a game that intentionally wanted to remove them all. But imbalances always exist, and it feels silly to pretend that "proper" balance can actually exist. If it could, someone would have managed by now. But nobody ever did. And while providing sub-roles isn't how I'd work with imbalance (I prefer unique class up- and downsides but people hate those even more usually as they mean singular specific classes are best for any individual encounter, and worst for other specific ones, too, but I like it as it allows great asymmetry between classes), I can accept it as one way of working with it. In a game like FFXIV at least, where swapping to another class within the same base role (not sub role) is so trivial, and the choices are vast and levelling is so frictionless and gear is even shared between various classes.

But yeah, fair opinion. Mine differs, but it makes sense that if you universally don't like sub-roles for that reason, then of course an MT/OT split is also not something you'd like. And from the perspective, I fully agree!