Yoshi-P Statement on Player Feedback

[Kaurhz]

snip.

You wouldn't get these tones, nor the argument in the first place if the vast majority of people weren't using "toxic positivity", "Passive-aggressive", or "White Knight" so willy-nilly to the point that it actually starting to detract from their original defined meaning, wherein the many cases of their use are just poor attempts at trying to shut down a disagreement with their own argument or points.

See:

Yeah, I disagree with the devs' design philosophy on healers. They seem to believe spending 80%+ of an encounter casting one spell over and over and over again is "fun". I think someone would have to either A) not play the role in any real capacity at all, and/or B) not care about the role beyond unlocking it and making sure it's barebones capable of clearing content and nothing more.

It is entirely a relevant, valid and fairly constructive criticism to make. Healers are largely fairly stale jobs, but then the only concern surrounding this is.. How would you then design the system that allows for the leeway on people making mistakes and then having to interrupt your own rotation and sacrifice your own DPS as a result of other peoples' mistakes? The way I view this conundrum is that once you've learned the encounter, you're presented with oversimplification (which yes they are notorious for doing - Especially taking the opposite end of the spectrum for crafting), and then when you're learning or when groups are vastly less talented and prone to making mistakes, then, well that's where I personally would see issues coming into play. I think the only thing that would really need to be taken into consideration here is those designing the jobs are not necessarily the same people testing, and the very people testing the jobs arguably might not have the same proficiency as you do, or many of the people playing at a semi-competent level. Or arguably their design and testing methodology and philosophy might not take these things into account, where as per your second point inferring, may only be testing for barebone functionality and usability. <- Also a constructive argument to be made about their design philosophy.

Which the above paragraph and your own both deviates both from "Lul devs lazeee", and "Lul just get over it"

You're right that position is eminently justifiable and a sound argument. What is not a sound argument is this whole shtick that many people have with the 2 above mentioned points of going for the developers as opposed to their design, or their philosophy of the job, or the communication with their community, such as forum panels for each role wherein people can ask questions and answers, probing the developers precisely for their philosophy. Again, I don't denounce criticisms such as this. I denounce criticisms wherein the only concern is a derogatory slugfest, or mountains of counterproductive remarks.

Respectfully, not everyone is as inclined as you to present their criticism without throwing a fit. That is the point.