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

[Sazuzaki]

That actually could be a pretty cool idea. I know in Blade and Soul, main tanks would spec into an enmity stat to increase their aggro generation. Attaching something like a materia so your job stone and allowing counter attacks to proc via rotation or adding an effect onto a skill like intervention would be neat. Same thing with OTs.

[EldDragonDives]

I made my thoughts on the change itself extremely clear in my last comment on this thread, so I will not rehash them here. What I want to bring up instead is how much I hate the WAY they revealed this change.

The Berlin presentation is still a ways away, and in the meantime, we are left to be at each other's throats over a controversial and divisive change that we were given barebones information about, and left with more questions than answers, knowing we're not getting ANY of the answers we need for a depressing amount of time. In my opinion, either they should have given us all the info THEN AND THERE or they should have kept it to themselves until they were ready to GIVE us all the information. This is, again, in my opinion, a terrible way of going about it. It's possible they did this purposefully to see what the initial reaction was, but that's just a possibility and I don't even necessarily believe it myself. I still utterly reject the premise of the division being job-based and it's doubtful anyone will change my mind.

[Carighan]

The Berlin presentation is still a ways away, and in the meantime, we are left to be at each other's throats over a controversial and divisive change

MT vs OT in an MMORPG is now a "controversial change".

It really says a lot more about how reductive, static and sheltered FFXIV's design was and still is, and how much it made it fall behind. See also how WoW's housing they did 0-to-hero in one big implementation basically makes a mockery of the one we have here. SQEX was sitting on its laurels too much. We're so unused to change even something as yawn-inducing as this split feels massive to us.

I suspect they just didn't think this'd be a noteworthy point of debate for players. Because it's so normal, after all, the same split basically exists right now on live. In hindsight they should have, of course. Like I said, this game has been so static for so many years (to its detriment) that of course even something like this feels really huge. But I suspect they just didn't because of how a similar split for healers wasn't a problem combined with how the concept just is never an issue for RPGs. Still yeah, they should have maybe expected this given they ought to know their audience, and at least had a full panel about the MT/OT thing and why/how/exactly.

[Lyth]

It's a regressive change.

There were people who considered themselves to be 'main tanks' in FFXIV. That was circa 2013, and they insisted on stacking max parry and VIT. Meanwhile, their skilled colleagues were maximising STR and damage while using using coordinated mitigation and swaps with their co-tank smartly to offset the defensive difference. Gordias ended that debate years ago (it continued on this subforum until about Stormblood, but not everyone got the memo). A more modern game probably wouldn't even implement a trinity design, let alone designate a 'main tank'.

I think the only potentially interesting change here is the idea of counterattacks. However, the planned implementation is something that has been tried and has failed before (because players find ways to take more damage to get more procs). I would be much more impressed if they reworked interject/stun to have job specific flavour and gave all tanks the ability to give mobs vulnerability in exchange selectively countering specific scripted attacks (especially if they're replacing the current system of timed raid buffs). That's the type of counterattack that I'd like to see, rather than spamming Shield Swipe procs off of every raidwide.

[Carighan]

A more modern game probably wouldn't even implement a trinity design, let alone designate a 'main tank'.

This is correct, although we can see from Guild Wars 2 that just removing tanks/healers entirely (and by default also removing DPS as a role since it's the only remaining one) does not just solve a problem.

You still end up with designated main tanks and healers. Even in such a setup!

And like you say, we already had MT/OT splits. We already had game-decided (not player-decided!) MT and OT splits. In fact we have it right now one could easily argue. Which leads me to ask an important question:
You call it a "regressive change". But since, right now, on live, we have an MT/OT split, what is the "change"-part of that statement? Just that it re-shuffles who is MT and who is OT?

(edit)
And not to misrepresent my opinion, I don't like the idea of some being "the MTs" and some others being "the OTs", I'm merely saying that from all available evidence both in this game and others, it's an unavoidable reality. It - seemingly - cannot be avoided. All SQEX is doing here is adopting the terms and realities the playerbase has already created in the game anyways. The sole meaningful difference is that like with healers, we'll probably see content designed with the idea that you have 1 regen + 1 shield healer, errr, 1 counter + 1 protector tank in your group. Nobody is stopping you from not doing it and in fact by and large the game doesn't even care (see DF group composition results), but the devs won't balance for 2 regen or 2 shield healers any more. It might be fine, it might be optimal, but it's never considered during balancing.

I really don't see the problem with doing that as the devs. Because again, they're not adding an MT/OT split. It exists. Right now. I dislike the names (heavily), but I also kinda dislike that on the healers, and I get that many don't like lyrical names. Heck we don't even call the red role "damage dealers" any more; we've reduced them to the number you see, DPS. They're not even inventing the terms if we're being honest, they're merely adopting the terms we the playerbase already use ingame. Right now.

[Lyth]

From my standpoint, I want to see the developers talk us through how they've thought this out, to demonstrate that the potential problems have been evaluated carefully.

At the moment, the terms MT and OT are just a convention used by guide-makers relating to who takes enmity first in the fight script. It's a bit like saying that you prefer the melee M1 position because you like the west corner more than the east corner. There are differences in how the mechanics play out, but you should be able to do either if you're flexible.

This is a bit different. Your MT will want to have enmity for as long as possible to maximize their damage output. If there's a forced swap, your MT needs to swap back as soon as possible to get counterattack procs. If the MT is not the active tank, then they will likely be expected to stand in avoidable AoEs to proc their counterattack to avoid 'griefing' their party with lower damage. There will probably be entirely new 'MT uptime' variations to every strat with different swaps once people get their initial clears and want to maximize damage (and you know how well NA/EU PF handles variations in strategy). You will see lots of PF arguments over who gets to tank and for what parts and over how it impacts their personal damage. I don't even need to see that conflict arise to feel disappointed in it.

And that's in the best case scenario, where MT counterattacks translate into a meaningful damage difference. If they don't, then a lot of groups will deliberately run double OT for the convenience around not having to cater to a MT, and better raidwide mitigation.

I do think that they need to change things up, but there's no point repeating a design decision that we know doesn't work out from past history. Counterattacks are a great idea, but they should be tied to intercepting specific attacks (i.e. an Interject style move) rather than recieving damage. If you did that, you could even make some tanks proc their counterattacks off of tankbusters, and others off of raidwides. I recognize that they've committed to splitting the tanks, but having an obligate MT that has to take damage is not a good idea. You don't need to 'wait and see' if you played Heavensward and Stormblood. Show me how this time is going to be different.

If they were really committed to mixing things up for tanks, we'd see an overhaul of the entire defensive toolkit, which has seen a progressive power creep over many expansions.

[Derio]

I think they should have just not presented the slide. They still could have shown PLD but without showing an OT, they have only sowed chaos in the community rather than confidence.

That or the wording of MT and OT should have been not used.

After reading some of the JP reviews, many people are happy with the change because one of the biggest problems in JP is there is not a option in the party/group finder to select MT or OT.

Another thing to note is that PLD defensive kit is still heavily bloated. The only thing they lost was Bulwark but the tradeoff for that is more availability for holy sheltron which isnt bad. If anything PLD defensive kit is overtuned compared to the other tanks which further made the slide confusing because of the MT OT description with PLD current kit satisfying both parts of the slide.

I think the biggest thing we can hope for is for Berlin to leave us with more answers than questions.

[Mikey_R]

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

No, that is what we have seen. We were shown a version of Paladin, it is easy to see how it will play and based on that, gave feedback on that design.

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.

Yes, which I explicitly stated. There has to be something missing from an AoE point of view, not just for Paladin, but the other jobs as well, so there was more speculation and questions being asked there, so, not feedback.

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

Again, I never said we needed a full kit, but we can base it on what we see. We have seen certain things, we have not seen other things. We can only provide solid feedback on the things we have seen, otherwise, it is just questions that need to be answered before proper feedback can be provided.

“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.”

And these are questions that need to be asked before you can give proper feedback.

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.

Of which this isn't feedback, this is just essentially demanding the devs to make sure they fit to your demands. And yes, phrasing is everything here. You can hope they do not make the tanks restrictive. I mean, from what we have seen on Paladin, it likely isn't going to be the case (intervention has the same buff naming scheme as Holy Sheltron) and we don't know anything about the OT kit to say anything. The same sort of reasoning is applied to the rest. However, we can also extrapolate the fact that they want to give each job a unique identity, so this is going to be one of the first things they think about when designing a job. The fact you think it might not be the case says more about you than anything.

Also, again, the devs cannot control how the playerbase reacts to naming conventions or how the PF policies the parties they make. They are free to make parties however they want after all. However, if the MT/OT label is different in this game than other games, the community is just going to adapt to it. Noone cares about what came before, all that matters is how it is used in this game.

As a bit of a side comment, looking at kits, Paladin already takes damage better than the other tanks. Guardian objectively mitigates more damage than Damnation and Shadowed Vigil (the healing doesn't impact the direct mitigation and does anyone actually take the healing into account when planning?) and making the comparison, the 1000 shield from Guardian is roughly equivalent to the 20% extra HP Gunbreaker gets, so they are very similar. However, noone actually cares. What if the differences are as small as this? We already know Paladin is getting ways to mitigate damage on other people, it is just, the OTs are a bit more effective. Again, it just feels like people are making a bit song and dance about something that might turn out to be trivial and we need to see more before we can give good, proper feedback on the MT/OT split. Let's not bring in pre-conceived notions from other games, let's not act like everything is going to go to shit based on nothing. The best thing to do is wait and see. Every concern might have already been thought of and accounted for. They aren't going to change anything without you seeing it first. Just calm down and wait and see.

Another thing to note is that PLD defensive kit is still heavily bloated. The only thing they lost was Bulwark but the tradeoff for that is more availability for holy sheltron which isnt bad. If anything PLD defensive kit is overtuned compared to the other tanks which further made the slide confusing because of the MT OT description with PLD current kit satisfying both parts of the slide.

This is one of the reasons why I personally think there isn't going to be much difference in the 2 tanks. Paladin has already been shown to possess things that are shown in the OT list. I just think that the OT is going to do it better. This is similar to what I said above where Guardian is objectively better at mitigating damage than Damnation and Shadowed Vigil, which could be an MT that is 'skilled at taking direct damage'. Yes, the mitigation is going to be better, does it really matter? Not likely.

[BabyYoda]

...

Your entire reply is a perfect example of someone confusing patience with analysis.

You are not actually arguing against speculation. You are arguing against speculation you do not personally like.

That is the whole issue.

When you look at partial Paladin footage and say the filler combo may become repetitive, that is “feedback.”

When I look at the MT/OT direction and say the labels may become restrictive, suddenly that is “not feedback,” it is “questions,” “demands,” or apparently some kind of personal flaw.

That is not a principle. That is just selective permission.

You want your own extrapolation to be treated as reasonable, but anyone else’s extrapolation has to wait until the developers personally hand-deliver the entire system with a signed explanation.

Very convenient.

You keep trying to build this artificial wall between “feedback” and “questions,” but it collapses the second your own examples are applied to it. Feedback is not limited to finalized systems. Feedback can be preventive. Feedback can be conditional. Feedback can be directional.

“If this system makes MT/OT rigid, that would be bad” is feedback.

“Do not make tanks lose value outside their assigned label” is feedback.

“Do not let Party Finder turn labels into policing” is feedback.

The fact that you need those statements to be phrased like timid little questions before you recognize them as feedback is your problem, not mine.

And calling them “demands” is especially weak. Players saying what design outcomes they do not want is normal feedback. That is literally how feedback works. Nobody is storming the development office. Nobody is issuing orders. People are identifying a risk in the design direction.

You are just trying to make ordinary feedback sound unreasonable because you do not like the concern being raised.

Then there is the “the devs probably already thought about it” argument, which is honestly the funniest part.

That is speculation too.

You are not avoiding assumptions. You are just choosing the most flattering assumption possible and pretending that makes it more mature.

“My assumption that everything is probably fine is reasonable.”
“Your assumption that something could go wrong is premature.”

That is not objectivity. That is optimism wearing a fake mustache.

And the Party Finder point is even weaker.

No, developers cannot personally control every PF listing. Nobody said they could. That was never the argument.

But developers absolutely shape player behavior through terminology, job design, encounter design, mitigation distribution, balance differences, and reward incentives.

If the game labels jobs in a way that implies fixed responsibilities, players will treat those labels as expectations.

If one tank is clearly stronger in one slot, Party Finder will enforce that.

If a job loses value outside its assigned label, players will optimize around that.

If the system encourages rigidity, the community will not magically become philosophical and flexible. It will do what MMO communities always do: reduce the system into rules, expectations, and exclusion criteria.

This is not dramatic. This is basic MMO behavior.

Saying “the community will adapt” does not answer the concern. The concern is what they will adapt into.

You also keep acting like people are saying the entire system is guaranteed to fail. That is not what is being said.

The concern is simple:

Do not make MT/OT identity rigid.
Do not make tanks feel worse outside their assigned role.
Do not let labels replace gameplay depth.
Do not create terminology that encourages PF policing.
Do not make flexibility a disadvantage.

That is not panic. That is not a demand. That is not “based on nothing.”

It is normal design feedback based on the direction shown, the terminology used, and how MMO communities historically respond to role labels.

Maybe the differences will be minor. Great.

Maybe the system will be flexible. Great.

Maybe the developers have already considered all of this. Great.

Then the feedback is still valid, because the entire point of the feedback is to preserve that flexibility.

You keep saying “wait and see” as if that is some profound position. It is not.

“Wait and see” is not feedback.

“Calm down” is not an argument.

“Maybe it will be fine” is not analysis.

It is just a comfortable way to dismiss concerns until the point where feedback no longer matters.

And this is where your argument completely eats itself.

You are willing to criticize Paladin based on what was shown, because you feel confident enough to extrapolate from incomplete information.

But when someone else extrapolates from the MT/OT direction, suddenly the sacred rules of incomplete information appear out of nowhere.

That is the double standard.

You are not defending careful feedback. You are defending your feedback.

You are not against speculation. You are against speculation that does not match your preferred conclusion.

You are not being more rational. You are just being more forgiving toward the assumptions you already like.

The most ironic part is that you accuse others of making a “song and dance” while writing paragraphs to explain why your speculation is valid and theirs is not.

That is not restraint. That is selective dramatics.

So no, the issue is not that my concerns are premature.

The issue is that you want your own guesses treated as informed feedback while everyone else’s concerns get downgraded into questions, demands, panic, or “saying more about them.”

That is not a serious standard.

That is just bias pretending to be patience.