#FFXIVHEALERSTRIKE

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Len_

As with most cases where people are advocating for their own interests, the naysayers really don't matter.

---

So you admit that this healer strike is pointless, then?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kazmarek

Healers who can't heal to save their lives (despite somehow healers being incredibly easy and boring?) slow that down.

---

These are related problems actually, I've personally allowed the tank to die in the MSQ roulette Ultima trial of all things because I was clocked out from not pressing a single heal for several real life minutes

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kazmarek

So you admit that this healer strike is pointless, then?

---

Yeah it's pointless because I need to be able to just mindlessly do my combo and be immortal in Final Fanstasy XIV in order to have a reason to live. These people are trying to kill me. Godspeed my brotha.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eorzean_username

I know it's always easier to suggest ways for other people to use their time, but, if anyone wants to use their free time to do it — has it been considered to start compiling the most-repeated statements that people bring in here (without reading the thread), and then create a resource that can be linked-to?

Like a "Frequently Asked Questions". Or maybe FMS, "Frequently Made Statements", too, since a lot of "negative engagement" is just smug prognostications. Or even an FFA, "Frequent Fallacious Arguments"... but that's probably a little too on-the-nose.

The point would not be to wield it as a flat tool to instantly shut-down questions or discussions (such as they are), but rather to a) make clear to people just how much certain things have already been asked/stated, b) create a standardised response that can be referenced, and is agreed by the organisers to be consistent with the "official" principles of the strike, and c) save participants some time, if they're not in the mood / don't have the energy to patiently respond to the same gish-gallop for the 213th time.

——————————————————————

---

One goal for the discord is this. Faq along with all the usual arguments and counter arguments that are being thrown about.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozziethedivine

I don't think this is gonna work out in the way you guys think it will. If it's true that healers are unneeded, what does going on strike do? The point of going on strike is that you ARE needed but are being treated unfairly.

I suspect all that will happen is maybe queue times get a little longer(not very likely) or people that don't main healer will just switch to healer for the queue times.

If anything this may work in the opposite way you imagine cause there will always be newbie healers ready to take up the role. Basically bumping out the older people that remember how healing use to be, to replace them with new younger and less jaded faces.

Good luck either way i guess, hope it actually works out in your favor. Though i fully can see this falling into the history of this game as an irrelevant moment as soon as DT comes out, and everyone is focused on that.

---

Zepla brought this up in such a 'gotcha!' manner. She also talked about duty support, and this is a pretty big oversight. Healers are not needed to clear content, that is why we are striking. However, healers are needed to fill duties with role requirements. This is what gives us leverage.

Yes, players can use Duty support, but there are issues with this. The first being how many runs can players do this way before they start telling themselves, "Man, this sucks!" Nobody uses duty support to grind dungeons, which is what all of us have to do for tomes, and the duty roulette has role requirements in order to get the daily/weekly rewards. There is also no telling whether or not the MSQ trials are going be supported by trusts as well. Then there is the matter of PF and High-end Duty, both of which are also role restricted for the most recent duties. How Zepla or anyone else missed this was so strange to me, that I had to double check to make sure that all of this wasn't just smoke in mirrors.

As for queue times, I will repeat once again that it is not our intention to disrupt the playability of the game. The striking healers are placed in the same boat as everyone else for choosing to not participate as the healer. And in fact, we are relying on other healers to take our place every bit as much as those against us and the naysayers. The difference here is this is a consequence we are willing to accept.

One last thing. Not a single one of us expects for immediate changes to take place. We are not naïve or unrealistic in our goals. If they do decide to look into adjustments during 7.x, then great! But the purpose of raising awareness is so the dev team places healers in mind when designing 8.0 content and job changes. We fear that those consequences will be far more severe than anything this strike can do.

Your support is appreciated.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kazmarek

Again, it's really not my problem if you're making poor decisions.

---

Who is holding you personally accountable? You've just thrust yourself into that role there, I think. Stop getting offended when War's overtuned sustain is being brought up as an example of the many issues with the current balancing. If SE decide to nerf Warrior's sustain as part of any solution, if one was to happen, that's on SE - maybe then you can start your own thread and rally other Warriors behind you? Healer players want to play healer, so would rather the role get some love; we want it to be fun for as many people/jobs/roles as possible, not just jump onto whatever's currently overperforming. You disagree with the strike? Fine, you've said that. So now what's the point?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozziethedivine

I don't think this is gonna work out in the way you guys think it will. If it's true that healers are unneeded, what does going on strike do?

---

The FFXIV system explicitly requires Healer(s) to be confirmed before randomly-matchmade content, such as Roulettes, can be entered by any participants.

However, once the actual instanced content begins, a Healer's presence often feels superfluous.

Thus, Healers are "required" at the system level, but increasingly not "needed" at the mechanical level.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kazmarek

Casual content's boring, I'd rather get in and get out as fast as possible. Healers who can't heal to save their lives (despite somehow healers being incredibly easy and boring?) slow that down.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kazmarek

So you admit that this healer strike is pointless, then?

---

Well, there is one thing that is for certain: Every healer that strikes only increases the chance that you get a donut healer in your party. Apparently they are a dime a dozen according to you. If you're a non-tank, make sure not to stand in the bad.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eorzean_username

I know it's always easier to suggest ways for other people to use their time, but, if anyone wants to use their free time to do it — has it been considered to start compiling the most-repeated statements that people bring in here (without reading the thread), and then create a resource that can be linked-to?

Like a "Frequently Asked Questions". Or maybe FMS, "Frequently Made Statements", too, since a lot of "negative engagement" is just smug prognostications. Or even an FFA, "Frequent Fallacious Arguments"... but that's probably a little too on-the-nose.

The point would not be to wield it as a flat tool to instantly shut-down questions or discussions (such as they are), but rather to a) make clear to people just how much certain things have already been asked/stated, b) create a standardised response that can be referenced, and is agreed by the organisers to be consistent with the "official" principles of the strike, and c) save participants some time, if they're not in the mood / don't have the energy to patiently respond to the same gish-gallop for the 213th time.

---

If certain people won't read even the OP and just run off the title, they probably wouldn't read an FAQ. They want to tell you that you are wrong for x reasons and whatnot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Niroken

If certain people won't read even the OP and just run off the title, they probably wouldn't read an FAQ. They want to tell you that you are wrong for x reasons and whatnot.

---

I think it's more of a time saving measure on our end. If we set ground work and say read that first... then ignore it... it is easy to dismiss them.

Not to say we don't want to engage with people who disagree, but if you want to argue something and we've already made our position clear it kinda just isn't worth the time.