Quote Originally Posted by Mikey_R View Post
...
I think this argument is starting to contradict itself.

On one hand, you are saying we do not have enough information and should wait. On the other hand, you are saying MT/OT roles are coming regardless and that those roles are already defined by SE.

So which one is it?

If we do not know enough, then players are right to ask for clarification.

If the roles are already defined and coming regardless, then players are even more right to give feedback now before those definitions become a problem.

You keep saying “we need more information,” but that does not actually address the concern. It just delays the conversation.

Feedback during development is not supposed to wait until everything is fully explained, fully implemented, and too late to meaningfully change. The entire point of feedback is to react to the direction that was shown.

The developers used the terms Main Tank and Off Tank. Those terms already mean something to MMO players. Pretending those words are empty until SE gives us a dictionary definition is not a serious argument.

Also, reducing the concern to “can an Off Tank stand in front of the boss?” is not engaging with the actual point.

Nobody is worried that an OT will instantly explode if they take aggro. That is not the argument.

The concern is friction.

Will some tanks gain more value when holding aggro?
Will some tanks lose value when they are not being hit?
Will encounter design reward one category more in one position?
Will Party Finder start treating certain jobs as wrong for MT or OT?
Will players feel punished for playing the tank they enjoy in the position they prefer?

Those are valid concerns.

And saying “the devs cannot control community pressure” is only partially true. They cannot control every player’s opinion, but they absolutely influence community behavior through tuning, terminology, job design, and encounter structure.

That is how metas are created.

If SE labels PLD as MT and GNB/WAR/DRK as OT, and then designs their kits to reward those positions, the community will follow that. Acting like the developers have no influence over that pressure is unrealistic.

The strange part is that you seem to agree there are unknowns, but then dismiss people for discussing the possible consequences of those unknowns.

That is not being more rational. That is just shutting down feedback until a later date.

My feedback is simple:

Do not make tank identity restrictive.
Do not lock jobs into positional expectations.
Do not make tanks lose value when they are not playing their assigned label.
Do not turn MT/OT into another source of Party Finder policing.
Make tank identity dynamic through gameplay, not fixed through labels.

Every tank should still be able to main tank or off tank.

If SE wants tanks to feel different, great. I want that too. But they should feel different through defensive identity, resource interaction, counterplay, mitigation style, and encounter response, not because one tank is branded as “the real tank” and another is branded as “the support tank.”

So no, this is not panic.

This is exactly what feedback looks like when players see a direction that could become restrictive and say something before it is too late.