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

[Evermomo]

True, although I would say given the almost comically bad state of the current class design in FFXIV, randomly deleting 10 skills off of every job would still be a marked improvement (just as bad but with less buttons, some of which are statistically going to be oGCDs -> at least there's some less RSI). It will be almost impossible to make a setup that's worse than what we have right now, and the 4 jobs shown off show marked improvements compared to the current design, to a degree FFXIV has not achieved ever since it's (re-)release.

The biggest issue, after all, was that unlike other MMOs the devs never dared to do sweeping reworks. People call stuff like the Astro-changes to remove the randomness of the cards a "class rework", but it is only a rework in the context of FFXIV itself. It's tweaks and changes in other games, not an actual rework.

It seems the developers are often terminally afraid to undo any balance they have already achieved, even if they are clearly stuck in a local dead end. The new designs more or less ripping things out entirely is exactly the kind of change the game needs, and frankly needed 2-3 expansions ago already. I'll more than gladly accept massive balance issues. Seriously. I don't mind imbalances between classes in MMORPGs to begin with (maybe it's that I started with games where you had say, classes intentionally for solo play which in turn were useless in groups but then everyone else couldn't solo in the first place), and I rather have better and faster and more sweeping design iterations than numerical balance.

Especially in games where changing to the "current meta"-classes is as trivial as in FFXIV. I can trivially work around any imbalances for actually tougher content by just going and playing what currently works for that content.

Did you mean to reply to me? I don't disagree with anything here, evolved jobs being an ambitious idea is a good thing.

[Mikey_R]

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?

Both, they aren't mutually exclusive. The devs have their idea for what they want out of MT and OT and given us 4 bullet points to explain the difference. It is about as vague as you can get and there is really no other information given except what we can find in the Paladin showcase.

So, we need more information to come from the devs. They have all the knowledge after all, we need more. However, we aren't going to see any more of that knowledge until Berlin, so we have to wait.

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.

..

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..

You can ask for clarification, you won't get anything until at lease Berlin.

As for feedback, feedback on what? You cannot give feedback on something you have no knowledge of, or are you saying you already know what the differences are going to be?

Again, SE have a record of using terms differently to other games, so it makes sense to go in with some caution. That was it. Just use the information provided and you won't be steered wrong.

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.

Which you need to wait for an answer for, which is likely to be Berlin. However, there is no point trying to say the system is not going to work based on these questions.

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.

METAs are always going to form no matter what. The question is how well that META does against everything else. If the gain is minimal, then it isn't an issue. Same here, if the differences in MT and OT are minimal, then nothing changes. Again, we need more info.

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

The problem is people taking the unknowns, making their own fantasy about what they think it all means and then justify arguments for or against the system being proposed. It is this that I am trying to stop. All we know is what we have been shown, that is it. Anything extra that has been tagged on is an unknown.

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.

This isn't feedback. This is just hopes for the roles. You need something concrete to work off of in order to provide feedback. You don't know how restrictive the tanks are going to be, you don't know where they are going to be positioned etc.

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.”

And how do you know this isn't their plan? Remember how we talked about the unknown? You keep acting like that isn't going to be the case. Wait, see what comes out and then provide proper, constructive feedback that the devs can work off of, not the imaginary image you have already made.

[BabyYoda]

...

I think you are trying very hard to redefine what feedback means just so you can dismiss it.

Feedback is not only a reaction to finalized tooltips, exact potencies, or a playable build. That is closer to a post-release bug report.

Feedback can be about direction, terminology, design risks, and the possible consequences of what was officially shown.

You keep repeating “we need more information” as if that somehow deletes the concern. It does not. It only proves the point: if the terminology is vague enough that people are confused, then asking for clarification and raising risks is valid feedback.

You say we cannot give feedback because we do not know enough.

Then you also say MT/OT roles are coming regardless.

So again, which one is it?

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

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

You cannot use “we do not know enough” to shut down criticism, while also using “this is coming regardless” to defend the system. That is not caution. That is just moving the goalpost.

Also, calling this “not feedback” is honestly bizarre.

Telling the developers:

“Please do not make this restrictive.”
“Please do not make tanks lose value outside their assigned label.”
“Please do not let MT/OT become Party Finder policing.”
“Please make tank identity dynamic through gameplay instead of fixed through labels.”

That is feedback.

You may not like the feedback, but not liking it does not magically turn it into “not feedback.”

And no, nobody is claiming the final system is doomed. Nobody is saying an Off Tank will explode if it touches the boss. That is a very convenient version of the argument to respond to, but it is not the actual argument.

The concern is friction.

Design friction.
Community friction.
Role expectation friction.
Meta friction.

If SE labels one group as MT and another as OT, then designs their kits in a way that rewards those labels, the community will follow that. That is how metas are created. Acting like developers have no influence over community behavior through terminology, tuning, and encounter design is just unrealistic.

You are treating the unknown as a reason to stop discussing risks.

I am treating the unknown as the reason to raise those risks early.

That is the difference.

If SE already plans to make the system flexible, then great. This feedback supports that direction.

If they do not, then this feedback is exactly the kind of thing that should be said before the system is locked in.

Waiting until everything is finalized before giving feedback is not “being rational.” It is just making the feedback less useful.

So no, this is not panic.

This is not fantasy.

This is not people inventing a problem out of nowhere.

This is players looking at official terminology, seeing obvious design risks, and saying:

Please do not let this become restrictive.

That is exactly how development feedback works.

[Mikey_R]

I think you are trying very hard to redefine what feedback means just so you can dismiss it.

Not dismiss, call it what it is. I said it was a list of concerns, that is hardly dismissing it.

Feedback is not only a reaction to finalized tooltips, exact potencies, or a playable build. That is closer to a post-release bug report.

Feedback needs to based on some factual information, not potential speculation.

Feedback can be about direction, terminology, design risks, and the possible consequences of what was officially shown.

You don't know the direction, you don't know how well the terminology fits, you don't know the design risks, you do not know the possible consequences with an sort of accuracy, therefore, not feedback.

You keep repeating “we need more information” as if that somehow deletes the concern. It does not. It only proves the point: if the terminology is vague enough that people are confused, then asking for clarification and raising risks is valid feedback.

I never said it deletes the concern, just reminding that you aren't going to get more info until at least Berlin.

You say we cannot give feedback because we do not know enough.

Then you also say MT/OT roles are coming regardless.

So again, which one is it?

We do not now enough, but we do know that the MT/OT split is, as of this post, coming to EC.

At this point, I'm more interested in what you think the MT/OT role is actually going to play in FFXIV, as you seem to have some sort of picture already.

[BabyYoda]

...

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.

[Lyth]

If you've been playing this game for long enough, you hopefully have some insight into how this is going to turn out without having to wait for 8.0's launch. It's the same dev team. They know how to make a good product, but everyone has their blind spots.

They've once again started with the assumption that if they implement a design direction for tanking, then players will automatically follow their prescribed approach. History shows us that this isn't the case. Your first question should be: Why should we bring an MT and an OT?

A double MT composition seems like a less likely choice, because counterattack procs are going to be factored into your total damage output. You don't want two MTs competing for procs. But what about double OT? Your damage isn't contingent on counterattack procs. From the slides, it sounds like you have the edge in terms of raidwide mitigation, which is what we really care about at the end of the day. At this point, I'm already questioning why I shouldn't lock out the 'pure tank' slot and just run double OT.

Of course, if you buff those counterattack procs so that they do a lot of damage, guess what we're doing? MTs are going to stand in avoidable damage to gain extra procs and make healers pick up the slack. And if you make MTs defensively powerful enough, then people will drop the second tank and add in an extra DPS.

I'm not saying that it's terrible and the sky is falling, I'm just providing a gentle reminder for the nth time in 10+ years that players rarely do what they are instructed to do.

[Carighan]

If you've been playing this game for long enough, you hopefully have some insight into how this is going to turn out without having to wait for 8.0's launch. It's the same dev team. They know how to make a good product, but everyone has their blind spots.

The principal class designer got exchanged, am I right to assume that the rest of your post is then naturally moot since the premise is false?
(and no, we got no information about any other designed of classes, they might have been swapped out, or not)

They've once again started with the assumption that if they implement a design direction for tanking, then players will automatically follow their prescribed approach. History shows us that this isn't the case. Your first question should be: Why should we bring an MT and an OT?

This is a problem that all games face, and all MMORPGs specifically, too. This is not an FFXIV-specific issue, and we can readily see from other games how this plays out or more specifically for this worry, doesn't play out. And it's not like there's just one way to mitigate this, the devs are free to pick. From forced group compositions (honestly this'd solve like 90%+ of FFXIV's class design issues in one fell swoop and with how utterly trivial swapping classes with their shared gear and all is in this game there's little reason not to do it, but it feels.. icky?) over target mechanics (you need an MT and an OT as some attacks specifically search characters of these sub-roles!) to complementary mechanics.

Also, you forgot the easiest way of handling this: Not.

What happens if they don't handle it? Then we pick whoever deals the highest damage as the tank of choice, yes? So... like now. And importantly, we do ignoring sub-roles. Like now. So everyone's worries about being "forced into a role" would be inherently moot. Like, well, now. Or rather, such roles already exist made up by players, NOW. At best they're adopting and steering them, at worst they're changing nothing and we continue as we do right now.