The Problem with Healer Feedback, and requested changes

[Renathras]

We already had. YEARS AGO.

So we had it years ago, it worked, people liked it...and this is an argument against it...why?

Because your definition of simple = shallow.

No, your interpretation of my definition is that simple = shallow. That isn't my definition of simple.

A class can be simple and have depth:

Agreed.

Both of them are very easy classes for people to get into and yet still can have some depth to them if you want to optimize.

And so do healers presently. Of course, healers are also managing party health, which DNC and BRD aren't really doing, but...

Tell ME why WHM can not also be simple and have depth?

Again, as before, you want me to argue a point I haven't made. When have I argued simple cannot have depth? The dispute here is that I feel they already have depth and you do not.

And tell me why the depth cannot be in the DPS kit so the healing portion can STAY simple fulfilling WHM's position as the barrier to entry healer?

Because (a) that wouldn't allow it to be an entry healer (or any of them) and (b) because the role is healer. The depth should really be in the healing kits, not the DPS kits for the healer role.

Affalus misery and Toxicon? Requires you to spend 3 lilies first or use a GCD shield.

To be fair to SGE, you get 3 for free and you also in solo content may use Eukrasia Diagnosis to get more of them since you're the "tank" in solo content, generating stacks. The only reason you wouldn't do this is if you're trying to optimize your DPS output...in solo content...by using only GCD heals on yourself. Which some people may be doing, but...wut?

Assize, Macrocosmos, ES, Phlegma? On 40-60s CDs. You are spamming 1 button for majority of that content. Not even BARD does that.

Here's the problem with this argument - you're spamming one dps button. In a normal fight, you're pressing a lot of buttons that aren't Glare/Broil/Malific/Dosis. The thing is, they're oGCDs.

I suppose one solution would be to make all heals GCDs. Remove oGCDs from healer kits and convert them all to GCDs. Then you'd be pressing other GCD buttons besides your spam nuke. We had this in ARR and HW. In ARR for both WHM and SGE, and in HW for WHM (also SB for WHM), so there's precedent for this.

The problem is you're only looking at GCDs and not button presses.

I get the why of it, but it's not like the oGCDs press themselves. When you use Tetra or Benison, those are individual actions. When you target a party member and then use a Card on them, those are two more individual actions.

So. If the devs want to make this game more solo friendly, why should 1 class be the sole one in the entire game that gets to have a boring gameplay loop for 86 levels and potentially beyond?

Simple answer:

Because that's what some people want.

Believe it or not, I've been trying to communicate in an effort to be nice to you--to help shed light as to why you seem to clash iron with everyone in the room so that you can have more cordial interactions with everyone regardless of what side of the argument you stand on. I will say that my posts are the ones receiving likes and yours aren't, so clearly my talk of receiving your posts as angry and visceral is resonating with the others who've been following the thread and it's actually not just me. I realize it's not always nice to hear people calling out behavior, but I've not belittled you for it. Like when you tell someone they have food in their teeth, it's to alert them to it, not humiliate them. But there's clearly a language barrier here and everything is being contorted into noxious hatred, so I just don't see a point in trying to help any further. All of it is going to be interpreted as a hateful attack anyway.

I believe you are trying to be nice.

I think you genuinely think you're trying to help in some way.

You aren't.

But I think on some level you probably think you are. The problem is, your attempts aren't helping. Clearly they're making the situation worse.

Worse still, they're consistently derailing the tread and requiring long replies from me to rebut the insults and character attacks you're unwittingly making without seemingly realizing you are.

My interactions are cordial - notice how I'm not calling people names, insulting people, telling them they should have no say or not get anything they want, etc? The only times I stray from that are after sustained attacks and character assassination, or people outright misrepresenting my words, seemingly intentionally, to the point they're lying. And even then, I try to keep a measured town and respond to the attacks made.

Your posts are receiving likes because of the people on this forum, most agree with you and disagree with me. We both know that, so don't pretend that's a fair assessment of our posts. It's a very biased assessment, and you know it. Bring some people into this forum that don't agree with you guys and that agree with me and then see whose posts are getting the likes. Your talk isn't resonating because those people objectively agree with your assessment. Your post is resonating because those people agree with you and disagree with me on the proposed changes, and so are not liking my posts but you're all liking each other's. We all know this, so don't pretend it's something of deeper meaning.

And, as I said: There's literally no way I can post here without you taking it the wrong way at this point. Seriously, tell me how I can.

I've made shorter posts.
I've made posts only addressing arguments.
I've refrained from engaging with you on personal insults.
I've refrained from personal insults.
I've avoided telling people things like "go play DPS".

What - short of agreeing to change all 4 healers - can I say that you would Like my post and they would as well?

If you can't think of anything, there's your answer.

It's not because my posts are "angry and visceral". Because I write these things with neutral tone and I'm not angry with you - as I said, I'm disappointed - so clearly it's not on my end. It's you guys interpreting something you don't like in a negative light. And there's literally no way for me to say it - I've tried several different ways thus far - that you would Like and agree with.

I realize it's not always nice to hear people calling out behavior,

Two points:

1) Do you have any idea how condescending that statement is?

2) You mean like when I called you out for arguing in bad faith and when I pointed out you told people to quit earlier in the thread and you rejected both outright?

You aren't alerting me.

Alerting me would be:

"Ren, I get your arguments. You're raising a lot of fair points. I will engage with you on those points. <offers arguments and counter arguments>. I'd also like to point out that <insert specific quotes> might be coming across a way you don't intend. Can you clarify what you mean by that or avoid <insert specific terms that you find angry or vitriolic>?"

That isn't what you did.

What you did was "You're throwing a tantrum" "You're self-righteous (in more words)" "You're angry and visceral and lashing back"

Can you see the difference between those two things?

That's why you aren't helping - your tone is antagonistic and your word choices are emotionally charged subjective and negative in nature. Something I already pointed out to you. Instead of saying "Oh, I see how you might be taking my posts the wrong way, let me try to explain...", you just used the same words again. Twice more in two further posts.

Can you see how I might find that intentional and that your goal isn't to be helpful?

If your goal was to be helpful, "let me try to explain" followed by not using emotionally charged words as part of that explanation would have been the correct course of action. Can you see how, after being informed of how that's a problem, you continuing to do it comes across as an intentional backhanded attack, not an actual attempt to help?

But, as I said above: Tell me how I can argue my position - that is, not just surrender to yours - where you all will Like my posts? I would love to know the answer.

Here's a thought- try to post without praising yourself, accusing others of not discussing in good faith, make inflammatory statements that derail from the topic at hand in attempts to discredit the other posts.

Clearly that isn't the answer. Read through my posts here. Notice how many of they I didn't praise myself in. Notice I've only accused one person, not all of you, of arguing in bad faith, and that was a person personally attacking me at the time. Notice I've consistently tried to keep the topic from being derailed and I've avoided inflammatory statements. Indeed, please quote the specific statements I've made you find inflammatory, with their surrounding context?

And notice how many of you have done all of what you say. Praised yourselves as better/done so by proxy by accusing me of being worse (carried, bad, lazy, etc), accused me of not arguing in good faith (no less than 3 of you have done so now), made inflammatory statements (tantrum, etc), and derailed the thread while trying to discredit me and my posts.

Why are those behaviors acceptable when you guys are doing them?

Why must I meet a higher standard to satisfy you when you guys will not hold each other to this same standard of discourse? Clearly, you're more than willing to Like each other's posts that do not meet that standard.

Because although some posts may have touched (just barely) on ground that could be seen as emotional, I do feel that the vast majority have not been in the form of personal attacks,

Considering my posts are being called "angry", clearly we're going to have to agree to disagree on this.

So what you interpret as "derailing" is rather more disagreement,

When a person is discussing my tone - even if they were using neutral and not emotional language (they aren't, mind you - they're using emotionally charged and derogatory language) - that's derailing the thread. Are you legitimately not seeing those posts?

Or do you believe discussing the tone of another poster in an attempt to discredit them is not derailing and is mere "disagreement"?

How come your standards only apply to me and not to your fellows?

real irony is that if you read the last couple of posts there are some that are debating about including some of the ideas that you proposed, perhaps not exactly as you want them, but that is probably closer than their initial positions.

Note when people make actual arguments, I address them. The people actually discussing leaving WHM alone started on this last page. In fact, it started after I was writing that post you just quoted. So you can't really use that as proof of your camp being accommodating, compromising, reasonable, and not vitriolic all this time.

If the thread has divided somehow into solely the two camps of "Renathras" and "those (aggressive derailers who only seem neutral [to others, not wise old Renathras]) who are against Renathras," there's a fixture in that categorization you really ought to consider.

How is "wise old Renathras", clearly derisive sarcasm, "neutral", exactly?

Also, your statement is "when the world is against you, the world is right".

Seriously, read this again. How many of you are saying things like this and insisting that you're being neutral? If I sarcastically said "wise old <yourname>" and told you you are the problem here, would you take that as a fair thing to say or an attack?

Again, how is it that your collective standards only apply to me and not your own posts and fellows?

Taurus has seemed to me, and seemingly to many others here, damn near saintly levels of reasonable.

He speaks in a more roundabout way - as I do - which sounds reasonable to people if they agree with the person. I'm not sure how accusing someone of throwing tantrums and making several pages of replies to a person attacking that person's tone doesn't look out to get them. Especially when said person clearly didn't want to engage in the tit-for-tat and clearly stated so several times.

That sounds more like bullying.

Seriously, look at how many of my posts were me saying to him "You're trying to goad me", where those posts I mentioned were him not addressing the arguments but instead addressing my posting style or his analysis of my personality? Look how many times I tried to "be the bigger man" and say "Look, let's just stick to the topic" where his very next post would be more attacking my writing.

That's not reasonable and good faith. That's him being out to get me. Though I will say I think he means well, he clearly wouldn't let it go until MAYBE his post I replied to just above this, but that remains to be seen.

than just something undesirable about your position

This is likely it.

You guys disagree with me and don't wish to give ground, so you dislike what I have to say. And when I defend my positions or assail yours, that agitates.

and/or how you've been framing it.

It's likely not this because I've framed my position a number of ways. Look at my original post in this thread that you guys started replying to. Notice how it's neutral in tone and was of the form "there are a lot of different opinions and I think this may be a solution".

There was nothing disagreeable about my post there to warrant all the replies other than just not agreeing and not wanting my proposal.

As I said above: Tell me the way I can make my argument where you guys will Like my posts and not attack my style and that isn't me having to walk on eggshells and meet higher standards that you collectively do not in your replies. I would love to know the answer to that question.

There are 4 playgrounds...

Look, I'm not going to entertain your "there are 4 X" when you keep ignoring that I offered a counter to the previous ones you did. You have to address that, not just make up another faulty parallel. Again, to me, they aren't "cardboard box and 3 square meters of space". That's not an objective statement of current healer design. Please stop. This is me asking nicely.

.

To all of you:

If you're going to insist you're arguing in good faith and not attacking me, here's a suggestion to try out for a page or two of thread and see how it works:

Don't sarcastically call me names, don't psychoanalyze my posts, don't tell me what I'm saying or arguing (you may ask as "Are you saying this...?" instead of stating "You're saying this!"), don't attack the style or length of my posts, only take what arguments are made on the topic of "all healers stay the same vs 1 healer stays the same and 3 are changed with dAST/nAST readded to the game vs 0 healers stay the same and all 4 are changed", stop liking each other's posts to give them a presumption of agreement or authority (if you agree with a position, present your argument for it yourself), don't site the likes as proof of that (seriously 6 people in a game played by over 5 million is your "majority"?), and when you offer counters or ask me to clarify positions, don't do so with emotionally charged, aggressive language ("Oh, you mean...you want to be lazy and get carries, right? THAT'S what you mean, isn't it?!" would be that sort of thing to avoid), and see if we can have a good discussion for a few pages.