We are in need of a official response to the healer situation

[Fyce]

Eh is there something wrong with evidence?

Yes. Apparently the forums don't think it's a good idea to check the content where the changes would be relevant before picking up the pitchforks and start poking away.
"Shoot first, ask questions later" seems to be the dominant mindset based off a strong bias that "because nothing changed before, nothing will change now!". (If everything worked that way, nothing would ever change. But that doesn't seem to be wildly understood.)

And here I thought people learned a lesson with Gordias and were shown how badly community's feedback could negatively impact something before it's even out. I guess I was wrong.

[reyre]

Yes. Apparently the forums don't think it's a good idea to check the content where the changes would be relevant before picking up the pitchforks and start poking away.
"Shoot first, ask questions later" seems to be the dominant mindset based off a strong bias that "because nothing changed before, nothing will change now!". (If everything worked that way, nothing would ever change. But that doesn't seem to be wildly understood.)

And here I thought people learned a lesson with Gordias and were shown how badly community's feedback could negatively impact something before it's even out. I guess I was wrong.

Explain this to me because perhaps i misunderstood somenthing, you are saying that you should not use past experiences as a basis to predict future outcomes, at least not use them as ENOUGH proof to acertain the future of anything, yet you use the gordias as reason enough to make the point that feedback can impact negatively this expact...dont you see the contradiction there?
If you can use past experiences as evidence or proof of anything then so can others.

[Fyce]

Explain this to me because perhaps i misunderstood somenthing, you are saying that you should not use past experiences as a basis to predict future outcomes, at least not use them as ENOUGH proof to acertain the future of anything, yet you use the gordias as reason enough to make the point that feedback can impact negatively this expact...dont you see the contradiction there?
If you can use past experiences as evidence or proof of anything then so can others.

If I claim that the door can be opened, I just have to succeed at opening it once to demonstrate that the claim is right.
If I claim that the door cannot be opened and make the prediction that it never will be, trying to open it once is definitly not enough. Especially if I managed to open it before (hello Heavensward).

So, if you don't understand that the process of proving that something can happen and the process of proving that something cannot happen require a completly different approach and set of proofs, then I don't know what to tell you. That's the basis of the scientific methodology and logic to prove and disprove stuff.

All "proofs" or examples are not equal. I don't know why you'd think they are.
As I said, nothing would ever change if past examples were enough to show what will (or won't, in this case) happen. Yet, the reality is very different.

[reyre]

If I claim that the door can be opened, I just have to succeed at opening it once to demonstrate that the claim is right.
If I claim that the door cannot be opened and make the prediction that it never will be, trying to open it once is definitly not enough. Especially if I managed to open it before (hello Heavensward).

So, if you don't understand that the process of proving that something can happen and the process of proving that something cannot happen require a completly different approach and set of proofs, then I don't know what to tell you. That's the basis of the scientific methodology and logic to prove and disprove stuff.

All "proofs" or examples are not equal. I don't know why you'd think they are.
As I said, nothing would ever change if past examples were enough to show what will (or won't, in this case) happen. Yet, the reality is very different.

True, all "proofs" are not equal.
But there are several problems with your statment, for starters arent you doing a non sequitur? Unless i am wrong, you are assuming that the feedback will/can have the same negative effect. Besides arent you using a similar value to decide that because the feedback lead to a negative result, it will/can happen again? Also it seems that you are using a false equivalence to support your claim.

You are making the same proposition as the others are making "because it happend once, it might happen again", or are you not? Otherwise why bring gordias as an example? It seems that both sides are falling into the slippery slope, you both are assuming that once you do some acction the "worst" case scenario will happen or in this case negative inpact on the game one way or the other. None of you have enough data yet you both are generalizing that is a faulty generalization. But enough the point is as you said "...nothing would ever change if past examples were enough to show what will (or won't, in this case) happen."(you wrote the exact same thing i wrote)if so why are you using gordias (somenthing in the past) to claim that somenthing will/can happen?

[Sebazy]

And here I thought people learned a lesson with Gordias and were shown how badly community's feedback could negatively impact something before it's even out. I guess I was wrong.

I'm a little bit late to the party here, but I thought I'd better chirp up and correct this snippet.

Gordias' immense difficulty spike was predominantly down to SE's QA team trying to save time by testing the encounter purely phase by phase. It's critical to be aware that not only was this with fresh cooldowns and full HP per phase, but for much of the testing period they also had various invuln buffs. It's been openly stated by Yoshida that the QA team never cleared A3S or A4S end to end.

The proof is in the pudding really. Whilst Yoshida claimed that the difficulty would be tuned back down somewhat for Midas, A6S ended up being significantly tougher than A2S. It's also not much of a stretch to suggest that A8S was mechanically a much more complex encounter than anything Gordias had, it just wasn't riddled with latency dependant mechanics and the DPS requirements were tuned to much more realistic levels.

TLDR: - The community's feedback was not to blame for Gordias' difficulty. Rather, the fault lay primarily at the hands of Yoshida's QA department.

https://www.4gamer.net/games/278/G027835/20151224179/ - One of the interviews where Yoshida talks about this.

https://www.bluegartr.com/threads/12...tions-requests - And here's a translation.

To get back ontopic. The talk about the overall weakness of the design of healer gameplay is bang on point. Honestly, in my opinion it goes much deeper than just the nature of each healers toolkit. There have been some encounters over the years with enjoyable quirks and gimmicks that did well to alleviate the expectation of a healer to just sit there throwing rocks. A2S and A5S are probably the best examples of this.

[Shurrikhan]

Yes. Apparently the forums don't think it's a good idea to check the content where the changes would be relevant before picking up the pitchforks and start poking away.
"Shoot first, ask questions later" seems to be the dominant mindset based off a strong bias that "because nothing changed before, nothing will change now!". (If everything worked that way, nothing would ever change. But that doesn't seem to be wildly understood.)

And here I thought people learned a lesson with Gordias and were shown how badly community's feedback could negatively impact something before it's even out. I guess I was wrong.

And again we have a false ultimatum pushed by a false narrative...

For every time SE claims that the playerbase impossible to appease because they want more than X and less than Y, remember that there can easily be dozens of acceptable points within that span. Asking for, say, greater than the difficulty of O1S and less than a difficulty of M8S does not exactly leave SE without (nigh infinite) options.
When the problem itself is that one piece of content was overtuned and the next undertuned, you can't treat those two points as infinitesimally close and therefore unable to be intermediated with proper design. If they were, people wouldn't have noticed the difference to begin with.

And the sad thing is that the idea of A4S being overtuned because of community request is complete bogus. It was an overtuned mess because they skimped on efforts to tune it. When your own test team cannot clear it without full HP and refreshed CDs per phase, atop various immunities, there's a problem. Why it was released as such despite this boggles the mind. But, of course, let's blame it on our being impossible to appease rather than the cut corners actually to blame here.