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

[Mikey_R]

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.

Far from it, we just need more information about how the jobs play before making unfounded requests of the dev team, for example, knowing whether Intervention can proc the counter attacks. We do not need a full tooltip for that, but we do need more than we currently do. Once we know, we can then provide feedback and lest you worry, if it doesn't, I will be there with most other tanks saying it probably should.

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

...

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.

But that is the thing, we do not know. Will an MT get no benefit by not tanking? No idea. OT, No idea, how is the community going to act? No idea. Is it going to feel worse to play? Well, that is subjective.

The point in feedback is, there is no ifs. If they reveal that MTs lose access to counter attacks by not being attacked, you can feedback that it is not a good design decision as you lose value. You identify the issue, explain why it is an issue using the facts available and then if you so desire, provide a way to potentially change the system, in this case, still allowing the MT to counter attacks, even if they aren't tanking the boss.

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

That is feedback.

Request.

To make an anecdote. If you are designing a new system, and you pitch your idea to a room full of people. This system does 2 things, at the moment, you are really only ready to give a glimpse of 1 thing, but you give a short rundown of what the 2nd thing does.

If someone says they think the system is looking good, based on what we have been shown, that is feedback, if they say, can it do X, Y, Z, that is asking for more information, if you pipe up and say, I think there could potentially be some issues based on how I think it is going to work, that, again, is not feedback, that is again, a request for more information. Which is what I have been saying to you the whole time.

This is honestly a lot of reason why I do push back against some people. Most of the time it is trying to get people to think what the causes and issues are. 'All jobs play the same' was a common moniker, but it doesn't actually say what the issue was. When you actually dug down, it was the 2 minute raid buffs forcing every job to fit that mould. But the original statement gives a completely different meaning to what the actual issue is.

So, lets not confuse feedback with general commentary, requests or queries. If you want some actual feedback, I made this post in my topic about what we had seen at the dev panel. The first part is about the Paladin rotation and how we are going to be using the filler combo 3-4 times on average per Imperator use and how that is going to get repetitive. I even considered whether the counter only came from Holy Sheltron or all blocking. The second half of the same post is then a concern I had about AoE damage. Spamming Shield Bash and getting Imperator every 40 seconds isn't going to be fun, not to mention no Expiacion procs. I did also speculate on how they could do AoE, but ultimately, it wasn't feedback as there wasn't enough information to go off off.

However, it is also worth noting that every single one of our current 21 jobs has been implemented in the game as of February, with mechanical tweaks needed. If you were hoping to change direction before they had implemented the jobs, you are a couple of months too late. We do not know what they have done, we do not know how they have balanced things, all we can do is wait and see and provide proper feedback on what we do see.

[Carighan]

However, it is also worth noting that every single one of our current 21 jobs has been implemented in the game as of February, with mechanical tweaks needed. If you were hoping to change direction before they had implemented the jobs, you are a couple of months too late. We do not know what they have done, we do not know how they have balanced things, all we can do is wait and see and provide proper feedback on what we do see.

That's an element I had not considered but you make a good point, MMORPG expansions are on a 1-2 years lead time for any individual element usually (you start working on the next expansion either before or just as you deliver the current one).

Meaning that yes, of course, if they want to release Evercold's reworked classes next january, they gotta have finished them ~this january or so.

[BabyYoda]

...

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.

[Lyth]

Now to put some more fuel into the discussion...

This video makes valid points, most of which is probably just common sense for someone who has played the game and focused on tanking for 10+ years, as in his case.

There's actually a bit more to the story on strength accessories. In ARR and Heavensward, tanks prioritized STR over VIT by either using accessories designed for melee DPS or by using STR materia pentamelds. To convince tanks to boost their HP, the dev team initially played around with VIT as a damage stat in late Heavensward, before deciding to force tanks into it by role locking them into VIT accessories without any STR on Stormblood's release. They felt that by doing so, tanks would then focus on 'tanking' as opposed to doing damage.

When players complained about the change, they were given buffs to enmity instead and the complaints were sidestepped as being 'about enmity' rather than 'damage'. After all, this is how they intended players to play the game now. Players then went back to their i270 STR accessories from the Alexander raid series, which were not role locked, and proceeded to tank with minimal health to maximize their damage output. When players flat out ignored the forced gameplay change, the dev team then had to compromise by adding STR progression back on to tank gear. This is a recurring theme through this game's history. When the devs are overly prescriptive about how we play, it usually backfires.

Part of listening to your playerbase comes down to observing how players are actually playing the game and actually adapting changes to fit them. There are a lot of tanks and healers at all skill levels out there who are actually interested in maximising damage, because it gives you something further to optimise and improve on. So you can expect that if counterattack procs are available, people will be standing in avoidable damage just to squeeze in extra damage. You can expect even the most casual of players to start arguing over who gets to tank and can benefit over the extra procs. You can probably already imagine what a nuisance 8p and 24p roulettes will be due to the constant toxic infighting between having multiple 'main tanks' who 'need' to get those counterattack procs.

On the coordinated side, you'll see organised groups testing out if they can get away with a solo MT and locking out OT, or alternatively trying to run double OT and locking out the MT slot.

There are solutions out there. LB penalty/subrole locks have been discussed but tanks are relatively rare. If you have an LB subrole penalty, DF will also be forced to always match one of each, which will increase queue times for casual content. You can apply damage down penalties for trying to proc counters off of avoidable damage, but then players will just min-max off of the ones that don't have damage down attached.

But I'd feel more confident about solutions, if I knew that they acknowledged the potential problems to begin with.

[Sazuzaki]

Exam season finally done. Holy hell this place has become a warzone.

I think the concerns regarding this are valid, but I also think people are being pretty close minded.

If we're looking at alliance raids as Lyth said, the split wouldn't create these issues; more so it would just show what's already been there. I've seen more than a few samurai just stand in an AoE or two just to proc Third Eye, and I've seen DRKs who failed to break their TBN just stand in an AoE just to break it completely LOL. And don't even get me started on the tank fighting... I can't even call them protagonist wannabes because alliance raids are boring as hell if you're not the main tank. So that leads me to this: these issues that I said are not really problems with the jobs but with how raids are designed in general.

If AoE's didn't just give you a vuln but rather some sort of status effect like sleep, paralysis, etc., then that pretty much takes care of that issue because those directly lower your damage output while presenting even more nuisances. They could even take the easy route and just give you a 15% damage down. Alliance raid bosses requiring 24 people but only one tank outside of a mechanic or two is also silly. The best AR bosses always were the big guys who targeted all three parties at once, usually also autoing all three tanks at once. They've gotten better at this in DT with most tank busters being three-person stacks, but there is still the issue of the other tanks not really doing anything when that's not happening.

The issue that I do actually agree with is the possible exclusion of MTs. Though from what I've been seeing, people are acting like that WILL be the case rather than that MAYBE being the case. It's something we'll definitely have to wait to see and makes for valid discussion, but try to have an open mind.

[Wildheaven182]

What something is called is arbitrary unless there are design changes based on it, so we dont have much to talk about but what it might mean for future changes.

I think itll be a failed attempt at diversifying tank jobs in an easy blanket way. But what we want is thematically diversified job gameplay, not performance diversified.

I would also accuse them of using this new classification as a way to promote the new tank job. Im sure it will become the second "main tank" so it is not only paladin. I think "main tank" will be getting some favoritism for survivability too, and right now the glazers will say "noooooo the off tanks will have survivabikity in other ways!"
And then when this turns out to be true the glazers will flip and say "well if you want to main tank then you have to play a main tank, dont play an off tank and expect to perform as well."

[Sazuzaki]

If the split fails, one idea I actually appreciate if they brought back tank stances with tank stance being DPS positive if use your mitigation right, and DPS stance giving you a more active rotation by giving additional effects to certain skills. They've tried this in the past but with the tank stance being DPS negative by locking skills behind the DPS stance, so seeing an inverse could be interesting. If they wanted to keep the soft-split between tanks that's always been there, they could have some tanks excel with tank stance and some excel with DPS stance but give that option available to all of them for added flexibility, much how most GNB's prefer being OT due to continuation.

[Carighan]

But wouldn't that mean you're always in Tank stance even if it's more boring, because it produces more damage?

(or vice versa if due to the additional effects DPS stance is more damage then you always want to be in that unless needed mitigation forces you to swap)

[Sazuzaki]

Not exactly because it would be dependent on receiving direct damage that you'd only get from holding aggro. This would result in a situation where people want MT because more damage, and if not that, it would present the old con of wanting to be in one stance because of damage. But if the argument is to allow MTs to be playable as OTs or vice versa, I think it's a decent solution that could serve well if balanced properly to return some flavor to the tanks.

[Carighan]

Not exactly because it would be dependent on receiving direct damage that you'd only get from holding aggro. This would result in a situation where people want MT because more damage, and if not that, it would present the old con of wanting to be in one stance because of damage. But if the argument is to allow MTs to be playable as OTs or vice versa, I think it's a decent solution that could serve well if balanced properly to return some flavor to the tanks.

Hrm, maybe.

I mean the idea has some merit.

I will say that it sounds needlessly complicated though, since it fixes a problem that from all available evidence just... isn't one. We know from the healer split that there isn't an inherent issue with it, we know from other MMORPGs and this one that such a split is not an overall detriment to a class setup and we know from >30 years of MMORPGs that players readily accept the concepts of MTs and OTs in class design.

Plus it then introduces another button, when we finally got SQEX to finally reduce the bloat. Of course, it could be something you flip in the character screen or so, outside of combat only. Or maybe even on a jobstone level, there's an MT Paladin jobstone and an OT Paladin jobstone, basically?