

So do you live by refusing to shape your decisions based on available data, some of which will be supplied by other people?
Thinking for yourself involves reviewing, critiquing, and incorporating/synthesizing the thoughts of others. Or did you educate yourself in a completely deductive fashion mentally with no empirical input from the outside world?


I see, I've been doing scientific research wrong since my undergraduate days! I need to repeat every experiment ever done in my field myself, because I cannot rely on the papers and work of colleagues!
Be right back, building time machine so I can actually witness paleoecosystems firsthand instead of relying on meta-synthesis of paleoecological, functional morphometrics, paleoclimate proxy, and depositional environment studies.
I'll have to reinvent physics starting from Aristotle first though.
-------------------
Listening to other people is not the failing so many seem to think it is. Working in the sciences, where a given person can only be a true expert in a very narrow field of study, has taught me respect for the consensus of experts from other fields without being blindly obeisant (neontologists can run all the models they want, if it doesn't line up with the fossil record I'm gonna be skeptical of it).
Last edited by Gaethan_Tessula; 06-15-2019 at 08:04 AM.


I'm honestly more responding to the "I think for myself and stick to mah convictions no matter what!" sentiment itself here. I find it poisonously anti-intellectual.
Anyone who says they think for themselves by actively ignoring outside sources of information really just means they cherry pick what outside information they choose to consider. Because no one actually does, or can, figure out the world from purely deductive reasoning (the enlightenment got that one wrong, along with the assumption people are rational actors by default). Nor can anyone on their own replicate the entire sum of mankind's empirical experimentation and learning from scratch within a single human lifetime.
Last edited by Gaethan_Tessula; 06-15-2019 at 02:43 AM.



The issue with that here tho is like fro mwhat I seen the people who PLAYED healers in 5.0 all said they were fine tho. Mr.Happy, and various others aren't worried about healing based on what they played, I watched tons of podcast of them saying so. So if we go by THAT then why ARE people worried?
Mr. Happy said the same thing about WHM in 4.0. Look at where healers were before 5.0-- so bad that they told us we had to wait on a new job for balance issues for another expansion-- and think about that. I don't think they really thought about how certain skills interact with each other. Misery for one. Everyone seems to think Misery is the OMG GOD skill, but it's really not if you really think about it. Damage going up in dungeons? Same *excat* things were said going into Stormblood. Nope.
He also said that SCH felt pretty bad, which goes against you saying that he said they were fine. I don't remember what he said about ASTs. But on State of the Realm there was a mixed sentiment about the card system at least. Personally, I was on team Sly who didn't like the changes.
Last edited by Reiryuu; 06-15-2019 at 08:44 PM.
"Then what is magic for?" Prince Lir demanded wildly. "What use is wizardry if it cannot save a unicorn?"
Schmendrick did not turn his head. With a touch of sad mockery in his voice, he said, "That's what heroes are for."
-- Peter S. Beagle, The Last Unicorn


So, again, a lot of that particular response of mine was aimed towards people discouraging another poster from letting the discussion here influence their thoughts/advocating blanket distrust of outside opinions. In isolation from the game.
Of course, your point is likely "if you typically trust expert consensus, why don't you trust Mr. Happy et al.'s take?" It's a decent one to make. Quick confession: I am not a master healer in this game. I know I'm not good enough to do Ultimate, and have no desire to waste my and other's time failing at it. I therefore wound up falling out of my static this expansion after O4S because I didn't want to prog UCoB (also, I had to finish graduate work and adjust to post-grad life). So Mr. Happy is by FAR a more accomplished and skilled player than I.
So, time for an analogy. There's a neontologist/neoecologist that was a teacher of mine. She's by far more accomplished than I in science (several dozen papers versus my three at the moment). I also think she's a better scientist overall both in terms of coming up with study methods and in insightful analysis of results. What she isn't, though our fields are very closely related, is a paleontologist. If she proposed the presence of Probabiles animalis, an extant taxon restricted to steppe, indicated a steppe ecosystem, but I have fossil or geologic data (other fossil taxa, paleoecological proxies) which conflicts with that conclusion, I'd be deeply skeptical. Perhaps Probabiles animalis had a wider realized niche in the past or we're dealing with a no-modern-analog ecosystem. I'm a worse scientist than her, but I know paleontology well enough to be confident in my ability to assess based on available evidence. Here, that available evidence indicates to me that the existing hypothesis based on the fossil record should continue to be be favored until further support for the steppe hypothesis manifests.
In this case, Mr. Happy is a better player than me, but he's not a healer main. It's not what's on the top of his mind going into a new expansion. The same goes for most of the other FF14 experts who've played, because Square Enix invited almost no healer mains. Meanwhile I've been in thehealerWhite Mage viewpoint almost exclusively outside of braindead casual content for my entire time playing this game, and I think the things I have managed to clear inform my opinion enough that I'm not speaking from complete ignorance.
The opinions of these expert players do figure into my thought process, but they clash strongly with my present experience, knowledge of tooltips for new skills, and prior patterns of Square Enix balancing/game design. Not one of them has answered the important question of "what are we supposed to do in the downtime? Is it more fun than what we had in StB?" As in my analogy, I think the burden of proof lies on the new hypothesis, showing that Square Enix has succeeded in getting healers right for the first time in two expansions, rather than the old one, which is that healing uptime is very low in FF14, DPS or support skills have to therefore be well developed to leave the role fun to play GCD to GCD, and that WHM lacks the tools it needs to be more than the prog healer.
Last edited by Gaethan_Tessula; 06-16-2019 at 10:10 AM. Reason: Elaboration
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
|