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

[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.