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

[Sazuzaki]

You don't need to have that particular "cursed" game design problem in the game though: the issue is coupling DPS to extra stuff, but the devs can just stop coupling DPS to extra stuff to avoid the problem completely.

Take gap closers. If you couple DPS to gap closers, they effectively become DPS CDs on top of being mobility CDs. Since DPS CDs have a very different use than mobility CDs, you get degenerate gameplay like dumping all your gap closers in the opener and having the gap closers as part of your DPS rotation. The solution is simple though: make gap closers purely mobility CDs.

The same applies to defensive CDs: "counters" basically turn a defensive CD in a defensive + DPS CD, so it will get optimized as DPS CD. Make them dps-neutral instead and you avoid the whole DPS CD optimization headache it would otherwise bring.

This all really comes down to having a preference. One can see that having defensive CDs impact your DPS as a headache, while another can see it as a way for skill expression. Same thing with gap closers; one can think it's "cursed" to use it in a burst, while another sees it as something to manage. That's what I mean when I say the only "correct" design is the one that pleases the most people. I don't mean to shut down your opinion, but dismissing the ideas of others using the basis of it's "problematic" or "cursed" is just being close-minded; you have to keep in mind that there might be a huge part of the player base that would love that regardless of what you think. That there could be ways to make something work while making it fun.

If evolved jobs don't work (which is possible), then the developers will likely go back to reborn mode which would be understandable. But people like me are happy they're trying something new, regardless of the risk. Either way, they'll choose whichever one pleases the most people.

[Mukuku]

This all really comes down to having a preference. One can see that having defensive CDs impact your DPS as a headache, while another can see it as a way for skill expression. Same thing with gap closers; one can think it's "cursed" to use it in a burst, while another sees it as something to manage. That's what I mean when I say the only "correct" design is the one that pleases the most people. I don't mean to shut down your opinion, but dismissing the ideas of others using the basis of it's "problematic" or "cursed" is just being close-minded; you have to keep in mind that there might be a huge part of the player base that would love that regardless of what you think. That there could be ways to make something work while making it fun.

To be clear, when I talk about "cursed" I don't mean it as "derogatory" term, in mean it as described by game designer Alex Jaffe from Riot Games.

A "cursed" game design problem is not just a "very difficult" problem for a developer to solve: it is an unsolvable contradiction caused by a design decision that introduces a conflict between two core game promises made to the player.

FFXIV promises to the player jobs that both offer dps optimization potential but also the ability to express more "tactical" decisions via "utility". In the case of gap closers, coupling them with dps creates a conflict against those two promises, since dps optimization effectively cannibalizes the utility aspect.

I don't dismiss that the end result might be "fun", or that the "compromise" might work well: my point is that there is a fundamental problem when making that design decision and that "getting it right" might not be easy at all.

[Sazuzaki]

I appreciate you dropping a link to that video. 20 minutes in and it's very interesting, so here's my take on it:

I get what you mean by saying pairing DPS with Holy Sheltron is a cursed problem; the problem arising from having to use Holy Sheltron as often as possible to maximize damage rather than holding it for when it counts. But here's the thing: Holy Sheltron has two charges on a 20 second CD. One charge is used to mitigate auto-attacks consistently, the other charge is held for TBs and the like. So long as you never overcap and you end the fight with no charges, you didn't lose DPS due to not spamming Holy Sheltron. The key design factor here is that having Holy Sheltron at two charges makes it to where you won't overcap so long as you keep the CD running with 1 charge open for flexibility. That directly addresses the cursed problem regarding attaching damage to mitigation.

In the case of gap closers, that actually wasn't the reality. Yes you would use them for damage, but most of the time it was more of a DPS loss to use it for burst than where you would otherwise need it. I can see why people didn't like using Plunge during a burst, but you actually got less damage if you consistently used Plunge purely during a burst than if you held a charge for maintaining uptime. Plunge's optimization was just use it during burst if you aren't going to use it anywhere else. I can see how this represents a cursed problem since the main draw is the gap closing, but it boiled down to how you managed its use.

The main thing with the cursed problems we have in XIV right now is that they're inherently subjective and unsolvable. Using GNB's continuation for example, continuation makes it much harder for GNB to weave in defensives, yet people love it. It's creates a "cursed problem" for a tank because it must have room to weave in defensives yet GNB's continuation goes against it. It's here because most people like Continuation for what it is and don't mind the friction it presents.

Alex mentions how cursed problems require giving up a part of the original idea, and that's pretty much what they're doing with the current tank design: they're giving up on the idea that all tanks need to be good at the same things in hope to improve job identity. Whether you think the idea is good or not is up for debate, but I think it's important to keep in mind that because you think something may introduce a cursed problem doesn't exactly mean it's a bad idea. If something is fun and can be worked around, I think it deserves to stay in the game.

[Mukuku]

Whether you think the idea is good or not is up for debate, but I think it's important to keep in mind that because you think something may introduce a cursed problem doesn't exactly mean it's a bad idea. If something is fun and can be worked around, I think it deserves to stay in the game.

I'm definitely open to see what the devs will cook.

My skepticism stems from having seen similar design decision being tried again and again and leading to similar issues again and again. I know I sound like the Endsinger... I am that burned by past experiences. You can picture me in shades of grey.

Maybe the devs will break the loop this time with some novel idea, or maybe history will repeat itself and they will have to redesign the redesign, again.

[Sazuzaki]

I'm definitely open to see what the devs will cook.

My skepticism stems from having seen similar design decision being tried again and again and leading to similar issues again and again. I know I sound like the Endsinger... I am that burned by past experiences. You can picture me in shades of grey.

Maybe the devs will break the loop this time with some novel idea, or maybe history will repeat itself and they will have to redesign the redesign, again.

I definitely see where you're coming from and I think you're valid as well. I just hope that if something doesn't work (which is bound to happen) that they don't immediately throw the idea out but rather think of possible ways of fixing it. Friction makes the sparks fly, and while you don't want too much of it, too little of it leads to stagnation.

[Carighan]

My skepticism stems from having seen similar design decision being tried again and again and leading to similar issues again and again. I know I sound like the Endsinger... I am that burned by past experiences. You can picture me in shades of grey.

Oh? Do tell.

Because I only readily see the Healer Split, and that caused no problems for them (healers have lots of problems, but they're not a result of the split, even the loss of Astro stances was because Sage was added directly, not indirectly from the split, it was just back to an even number of healers).

Which other roles were split into subroles where that caused a problem?

I mean obviously this split could be problematic. And the names are kinda meh as from what they said they don't really intend them to be MTs or OTs in the classical sense - compare DAoC with Hibernia's Hero vs Blademaster for an actual example. But then again, if you think it through, if you have 4 tanks as homogenized as the current ones are (so effectively 1 tank), and you split it into two sub-roles, now you have 2 tanks. In the ideal case, we'd split into 4 sub-roles (or 5 with EC), meaning every tank is unique. So in a lot of ways, splitting in two specializations is an improvement, albeit only a small one because we need 5 total soon, not 2. But definitely not the 1 we have right now.

[Terhix]

(...) The same applies to defensive CDs: "counters" basically turn a defensive CD in a defensive + DPS CD, so it will get optimized as DPS CD. (...)

It doesn't though and these aren't analogs. For this to be a tension in design then optimizing defensive CD for dps would have to be at odds with optimizing it for defensiveness, but the current design of the PLD already incentivizes you to press Sheltron effectively "on cooldown" (at or reaching 100 oath). This is actually one of the main gripes I have with TBN, the way TBN is designed it disincentivizes you from pressing it to mit autos because - even if it breaks every time all the time - doing so in the current game will net you a dps loss, it's a big contributor to DRK feeling squishy as MT.