Quote Originally Posted by Mikey_R View Post
...
I think this discussion is turning into a vocabulary lesson instead of a design discussion.

You keep trying to separate “feedback,” “concern,” “request,” and “query” as if changing the label somehow changes the substance.

It does not.

If players respond to an officially shown direction and say, “This could create a problem, please avoid that outcome,” that is feedback. You can call it a concern, a request, or risk analysis if that makes you feel better, but the function is the same.

The strange part is that your standard only seems to become strict when the concern is about MT/OT restrictions.

You said Paladin using filler combo 3-4 times between Imperator may become repetitive. That is a concern based on partial information.

You also said AoE may become boring if it becomes Shield Bash spam with Imperator every 40 seconds. That is also a concern based on partial information.

I think those are valid points.

But by your own definition, are they “not feedback” because we do not have the full final kit yet?

Or does this strict definition only apply when someone else is raising concerns?

You say feedback needs factual information. Good. We have factual information:

SE officially used MT and OT labels.
SE officially presented them as different tank directions.
SE showed Paladin as the MT example.
SE stated this split is part of the upcoming design.
You yourself said MT/OT is coming regardless.

That is enough factual information to give directional feedback.

No one is claiming to know every tooltip, potency, or final encounter design. That is not the point. The feedback is about the risks created by the terminology and direction shown.

And yes, I use “if” statements because that is how risk feedback works.

“If this system rewards tanks only inside their assigned label, it may become restrictive.”
“If Party Finder treats those labels as fixed expectations, it may create friction.”
“If a tank loses value outside its label, it may feel worse to play flexibly.”

This is not pretending to know the final design. This is identifying obvious risks before they become baked into the system.

Also, saying all jobs have already been implemented does not make feedback less important. It makes it more important. If only mechanical tweaks remain, then now is exactly when these concerns should be raised.

Waiting until everything is finalized is not “proper feedback.” It is just late feedback.

So call it concern, request, query, risk analysis, or whatever category makes the spreadsheet look cleaner.

The substance is still the same:

Do not make MT/OT restrictive.
Do not make tanks lose value outside their assigned label.
Do not let terminology become Party Finder policing.
Do not make tank identity come from fixed labels instead of gameplay depth.

If SE already plans to avoid these problems, great. Then this feedback supports that direction.

If not, then this is exactly the kind of feedback that should be said now.

That is not speculation replacing facts.

That is feedback based on the facts currently available.