Quote:
Originally Posted by
Silver-Strider
Listen Todd Howard, just because something works does NOT make it fun. If anything, it just highlights how awful the healer role in general is when you have to settle for FUNctional instead of actually being fun
I mean, I find it FUN as well as working. But, again, the argument is "If we make 3 healers complex leaving 1 alone for people that like present healing, why is this unacceptable/bad?" That is, if we're giving people that want complex healers THREE OF THEM, why must they have ALL FOUR?
I've yet to see an actual argument against this that isn't subjective "Well, _I_ think that would be boring; implying EVERYONE would find it boring and thus we have to change it or no one would play it because it would be boring".
No one says the part after the semi-colon, probably because we all know it isn't true. It's more likely a LOT of people like simple and would play it, thus making the argument everyone wants complex out as a lie (we'd actually see really quickly how many healers prefer simple vs how many want complex, and I'm QUITE confident at least 25% would pick simple, and probably closer to 50%...are you convinced that everyone would gravitate to the complex and abandon the simple, really?), ripping away the fog of uncertainty about which style is preferred. We'd also see the people that prefer simple still able to clear current content.
EDIT:
The second argument is "Well, MY favorite healer is the one that would stay simple, so _I_ would still be bored; so screw all the people on the other healers that like simple AND on my healer that like simple - everyone should be forced to change to suit me and how dare I have to swap healers even if I'm asking all 4 of the healers' simple players to swap away from healing or completely change how they play."
Needless to say, that's selfish AND unfair. It's replacing one group of people who are miserable (people who want complexity) with another (people who want simple), and that latter group is VERY LIKELY the larger group. It's also rejecting the actual compromise position that could maximize the amount of people who are happy, or at least content.
I don't want to play psychic, but I'm starting to wonder if the "I'm board/want complex/healing is boring" is just a mask for "I'm an elitist and want other people to not be able to clear MY content". Thus far, I've stubbornly been giving people the benefit of the doubt and NOT assuming that, btw.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Sebazy
This goes back to fights being rather bland and safe in some ways compared to what we used to have...
Agreed, but as many have noted, I've advocated for, and people here have opposed; that would require changing how fights are designed going forward to make that utility/healing worth it. And it carries the risk of some utility Jobs being too powerful. If PLD is the only Job with Cover, and there's some mechanic where you REALLY need Cover, that means the other tanks are less desirable for the content. On the other hand, if the content doesn't NEED Cover, and Cover isn't so useful you trade damage for it, then you take DRK/GNB instead.
Quote:
Eehhh, it's a good bit more than 3%...
I'll have to check again, but the max parses were close the last time I looked, and the averages, too. And for healers and tanks, the gap is even more narrow in terms of party-wide DPS.
Quote:
I genuinely think you're just overblowing the manner in which the community will treat jobs that are behind the curve...
This community literally rejected SAMs, as a matter of course, from most PF groups in SB. Today, MCH's have trouble finding Statics. I don't mean "Blacklisted from their friends list", I mean "have some major difficulty getting into groups/statics."
This community has done that in the past and IS doing it in the present. I'm not sure using past AND PRESENT actions to project what would likely happen were we to adopt such a change is foolish. I'd argue NOT doing so would be more divorced from reality. If you're making a statistical prediction, you use past and present statistical information to inform that prediction, do you not? I'm doing the same here. You can argue over the magnitude, but not the fact that it has happened, IS happening, and would likely happen again. Even if the magnitude is less than my concern/prediction/projection, I think we should be able to agree it would still likely happen...and I'd hope we can agree that would be kind of a negative thing.
And yes, it doesn't matter - but as I've said before, the meta informs people even running content where it's completely irrelevant. Why? Well...because people are kinda lazy. If a meta tells them X Job is subpar, they don't often go into the fine print and of specific comps, content, etc. They just go "Oh, that Job is trash. Yeah, let's not allow it in our PF group/static." You seem like an intelligent person, so I think you should be able to draw the same inference here. Again, you can argue magnitude, but you can't insist a thing won't happen that both has happened and is happening.
Quote:
It's still just roundabout conjecture though no?
Now you're reaching.
You asked what it was based on. I told you what it was based on. What it was based on seems to be reasonable, and I'll note you didn't contest that the conjecture and its basis ARE reasonable. Insisting on the technicality that it is still conjecture is not a rebuttal if you aren't able to argue cogently against the conjecture, its basis, or its conclusion. The contra position that it WON'T happen is ALSO still "just … conjecture".
It's also not "roundabout". It's a rational prediction based on existing data. It's DIRECT conjecture, not ROUNDABOUT conjecture, thank you very much. :)
EDIT:
Putting this here because of daily limit, will try to remember to make a new post for it later...or not:
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Shurrikhan
Depending on how that complexity is granted (i.e., as to factor more into the job's ceiling than floor), any player who doesn't want a complex kit already has their wish fulfilled: they can just use less of the kit.
Not while still clearing content.
Quote:
Given that even the hardest content in the game can be either solo-healed
ONE PLAYER in an elite group managing to do a thing with a flawless team does not reflect the normal game experience.
Quote:
Which is more complex, MNK or SAM? BRD or DNC? DRG or RDM? You might be able to come to an answer to each based on your personal warrants, but would others arrive at the same conclusions?
Yet SMN is the least complex, and I don't think you will find one person arguing otherwise.
Quote:
That's what you're leaving out here: Complexity is differently perceived by different people.
This is true, but also applies to your own position. Guaranteed there are some people playing FFXIV right now that feel WHM is complex and nuanced as-is
Quote:
Giving each job more to work with is not going to force them to be themed around being complex for the sake of being complex;
If the purpose of adding it IS to make them complex, then yes, it is.
Quote:
it merely allows them the ability to distinguish themselves
I'm confused, is the argument that people wanting complexity are bored or that people wanting complexity want to stand out and look down their noses at their inferiors? These are two VERY different things...
Quote:
Find me the players who specifically want their kit to literally look like...
/raises hand
And I'm not alone.
Quote:
That seems like a combination of projection and a false ultimatum. There is no requirement that WHM, must remain unchanged for the others to receive positive changes. Improvements to most are not thus dependent on ritual sacrifice of one.
FIRST: They aren't "positive changes". They're positive TO YOU because YOU LIKE complex. The same argument you made about comparing Jobs above applies - did RDM or DRG get positive changes in EW? Depends on who you ask...
SECOND: It IS an ultimatum. This is the system we have now. You are wanting it to change. It is incumbent on you to (a) prove the change is worthwhile, (b) make accommodations for those not wanting the change, and (c) come up with some compromise if your system isn't palatable to everyone.
Not only that, your OWN position is an ultimatum - change ALL the healers...or else!
And as for where you underlined "over" in "overcomplicate"; I used that term specifically to counter your use of "boring", "bland", etc. See how it feels when people use biased terms opposing your view? I'm sure you don't understand, but I'm trying to get you to see there's another side.
Quote:
Spare us the blasé and strawmanned moralizing?
Says the person insisting on a caricature? This is exactly what you're doing when you refuse to allow ANY healer to stay as it is. I fear this is a "if the shoe fits..." reaction on your part.
.
You completely ignored my saying I DO want you to be happy and explaining to you WHY we should have a "ritual sacrifice" of one. I'll also note you ignored my argument entirely on that matter, the only way you at all acknowledged it was to hand-wave it away as "you can just be bad" as if that's a legitimate counter to making content unplayable to a segment of the playerbase, and ignored my question related to that:
Quote:
That would mean I would lose the Job I like best, but I'm willing to give that up so people like you can be happy. All I ask is that ONE Job be one that I can play on and be happy.
...and you would deny me even that. ... Do you not see how that's a bad thing?
Is it fair to assume you DON'T care if anyone else is happy and DON'T WANT people like me to be happy? Do you see how that's selfish and cruel of you and not at all moderate, sober minded, nor a compromise?
I've appealed to you with reason.
I've appealed to you with compassion.
I've appealed to you with compromise.
Yet you've rejected them all, often ignore or caricature my positions, and refuse even a token compromise beyond "Well, you can just be bad under the new system", which is NOT a compromise of any kind.
I know of no further appeal to make if heart, argument, and reason have all failed. So I will just say this and then yield the floor:
Right now, you get NOTHING that you want.
Under my proposal, you'd get SOMETHING you want.
You're rejecting SOMETHING because it's not EVERYTHING, and so you're likely to get NOTHING.
I don't want you to get NOTHING, but your stubborn insistence on EVERYTHING makes it hard for me to even argue you should get SOMETHING.
I'd encourage you to consider compromise and...be less selfish. But I can see my appeals are falling on deaf ears, so I'll let other readers decide what they want and just move on...