Quote Originally Posted by Mikey_R View Post
...
I think this is where the disagreement is becoming circular.

You keep trying to separate “concerns” from “feedback,” but in development discussions, concerns about an officially presented direction are feedback.

SE officially used the terms MT and OT.
SE officially presented them as different tank directions.
SE showed Paladin as the MT example.
SE stated this split is part of the coming design direction.

That is factual information.

I am not inventing a system from nothing. I am responding to the terminology and direction that were officially shown.

You seem to be setting an impossible standard where feedback is only valid once we know every tooltip, potency, encounter design, and final implementation detail. But by that point, the feedback is already far less useful.

That is not a serious standard for development feedback.

Early feedback is not supposed to be a final verdict. It is supposed to identify risks before they become baked into the system.

You ask what I think MT/OT will mean in FFXIV. I am not claiming to know the final answer. That is exactly why I am asking for clarification and raising risks.

The risks are simple:

If MT means a tank gains more value while holding aggro, that can create friction.

If OT means a tank gains more value while not holding aggro or supporting the other tank, that can create friction.

If PLD is labeled MT and other tanks are labeled OT, Party Finder may turn those labels into expectations.

If a job feels worse when played outside its assigned label, that becomes restrictive even if it is still technically playable.

That is the point.

You keep responding as if I said, “The final system is confirmed to be bad.” I did not.

I am saying, “This direction has obvious risks, so please avoid making it restrictive.”

That is feedback.

You can call it concerns, feedback, risk analysis, or whatever term you prefer. The label does not change the substance.

The substance is this:

Do not make MT/OT a restrictive role split.
Do not make tanks lose value outside their assigned label.
Do not create another source of Party Finder policing.
Do not make job identity come from labels instead of gameplay.

Make every tank capable of both roles, but give each tank a different defensive identity and gameplay style.

If SE already plans to do that, great. Then this feedback supports that direction.

If they do not, then this is exactly the kind of feedback that should be given now, not after the system is already locked in.

So no, I am not pretending to know the final design.

I am pointing out the risks of the direction shown so far.

That is not speculation replacing facts. That is feedback based on the facts currently available.