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

[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.

[Mikey_R]

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

ARR Paladin was one combo over and over again, how many people complain that Dark Knight needs another combo? How about healers who want to do more than press the 1 button with the occasional other button. We have so many examples that spamming 1 attack/combo over and over is not the most exciting thing. The only reason you don't really feel it on Bard is because they have many different things to keep track of that you forget the filler is pressing 1 button. This then flies in opposition to:

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.

Where we have 4 total bullet points and what we have seen from Paladin. We know nothing. You have no idea what an OT kit looks like, you do not know how it is going to handle things, you know nothing. Everything past the bullet points is speculation. There is no feedback to give, just questions to ask.

If you cannot see the difference, that is on you and maybe you should start thinking about what is actually said rather than what you think has been said. You have misquoted me several times on my views, including this one:

Feedback is not limited to finalized systems.

Which is never what I said at all. Again, failing to understand what has been said and the arguments being made does not help you at all.

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.

If that is what you got, you misunderstand my points. I am neutral on anything we haven't seen, which means I am not going to say it is all a bad idea in the same way I am not going to say it is a good idea. I know, novel right.

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.

Your argument was to ask the devs to not create community pressure where PLD has to MT and WAR/DRK/GNB have to OT. That is post 138.

Or, how about 'Do not turn MT/OT into another source of Party Finder policing.' in post 142, repeated in 153, 155, 173, and 189.

You are the one who bought this point up, all I have said is, the devs cannot control the playerbase and the playerbase will adapt. I do not see how you can argue with 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.

But is that what you see at the moment? Do people only take specific jobs because they do the most damage? For the most part, no, only if there is a very very clear outlier. Do PF listings always have a barrier and pure healer only? No, they can mix it up depending on the content. The same thing is ging to happen here.

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

Again, never said that. Just said do not make assumptions about the system and doom and gloom over those assumptions. Wait for the information to come out and then give proper feedback.

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

Unless the neutral position is now classed as 'profound', then no.

The interesting thing about this whole exchange is the fact it started as me saying to not make assumptions about things and then make comments based on that assumption. However, that is exactly what you have been doing to me. Regardless, I really do not care about responding any more, so I won't be.

[BabyYoda]

...

“I really do not care about responding anymore, so I won’t be.”

That is a very dramatic way of saying you wanted the last word without having to defend it.

And honestly, the timing is perfect.

You were very invested when the argument was “other people are making assumptions.” You had plenty of energy for “you misunderstood me,” “you misquoted me,” “you do not understand the argument,” and “that is on you.”

But the second your own assumptions get put under the same standard, suddenly the conversation is beneath you.

Very impressive neutrality.

The problem is simple: you are not against assumptions. You are against assumptions that make the system look risky.

When someone says MT/OT direction could create rigidity, that is speculation.
When you say the playerbase will adapt, PF will be fine, and people will mix roles depending on content, that is apparently neutral analysis.

That is not neutrality. That is your optimism wearing a referee shirt.

You keep trying to frame this as if people are saying “the system is guaranteed to fail.” They are not. That is just the version of the argument you need in order to sound reasonable.

The actual argument has been painfully simple:

A system can be interesting and still carry risks.
A design direction can be promising and still need clarification.
A community can adapt, but it can also reduce design incentives into rigid expectations.

This is basic MMO behavior. Players optimize. PF filters. Communities simplify. Metas form. Expectations harden. None of this requires the developers to personally control every listing.

So when you keep saying “the devs cannot control the playerbase,” you are not answering the point. You are dodging it with a sentence that sounds useful until someone reads it twice.

And the Paladin comparison still exposes the whole thing.

Partial Paladin footage is enough for feedback about possible repetition.
Official MT/OT bullet points are somehow not enough for feedback about possible restriction.

So your standard is not “do we have enough information?”
Your standard is “do I like the concern being raised?”

That is why this whole “wait and see” routine is not as neutral as you think it is.

“Wait and see” is the easiest position in any pre-release discussion. It costs nothing. It risks nothing. It contributes almost nothing. It lets you dismiss concerns before release and then act like nobody could have known afterward.

It is not analysis. It is just hiding behind uncertainty.

Feedback before release exists specifically because systems are not finalized yet. If we wait until everything is locked in, then feedback becomes postmortem commentary.

But sure, call it speculation if that makes the exit cleaner.

Just do not pretend leaving the conversation is some mic-drop moment.

It is not.

It is just you realizing that your entire argument depends on giving your own assumptions a nicer name than everyone else’s.