Healer Survey:

[IDontPetLalas]

The part about that which I think is troublesome is we have raidwide paralysis cases (though extremely rare), and it's not exactly a fun experience just casting Esuna 8 times. Perhaps if we expand upon debuff cleansing as a form of utilty though, that could be better. But the issue is if it's that dreadful, then it becomes a mandetory Esuna rather than a choice or a decision that needs to be made. The worse it is, the sooner you want to remove it as well, so it can feel quite binary in that regard. The best cases are situations where you need to decide how to approach a problem, such as Rescuing a heavied ally rather than Esunaing the heavy off them.

Or perhaps you include things like Warden's Paean that prevent debuffs, so timing an effect like that before you see a debuff coming could also play into more interesting decision making.

I always found esuna to be strange in this game. I'm used to other games where if I was using a healing spec - which in basically this game's ONLY option for healers- I had one if not multiple AOE versions of esuna, sometime combined with an AOE hield or even shield. The CD might be long (30 sec , even more). In those games it wasn't typical to have a "doom" even in more difficult content, but as it was coupled with other more useful effects I don't think healers got completely out of the habit of using it - plus in at least one game it happened to routinely be used in PVP.

[ty_taurus]

Had to remake the feedback spreadsheet and split it up because I think having too much data on one spreadsheet caused it to crash indefinitely, but the new links are up and answers are still coming in, albeit more slowly.

[ForsakenRoe]

Was wondering why it was crashing, btw your chart for 'should SGE get a rework' is labelled 'should AST get a rework', same for RPR being labelled SAM

[ty_taurus]

Was wondering why it was crashing, btw your chart for 'should SGE get a rework' is labelled 'should AST get a rework', same for RPR being labelled SAM

Fixed. Thanks for the heads up. Redoing everyone all over again was taxing.

[Renathras]

Had to remake the feedback spreadsheet and split it up because I think having too much data on one spreadsheet caused it to crash indefinitely, but the new links are up and answers are still coming in, albeit more slowly.

Overall, I think it's been a neat experiment - and more broad than just Healers - though with the caveats that people answering might be more negative than the general population (with, apparently, the exception of BLM and maybe DRG, because singularities DO exist in the universe! )

As to Healers specifically, cross posting what I said there here:

WHM has a lower approval than SCH (5.03 vs 5.24), but is more (as I said before) even across the board. That is, people feel less strongly about it in general in that it has no really lopsided "super high" and "super low" response values. It's kind of the "vanilla" of Healer Jobs; few people hate it, few people love it, most people find it acceptably un-obnoxious. Everything is in a pretty narrow band. But what really gets to me is the preferred version. 41.2% think Endwalker is the best iteration with 15.3% preferring ShB. The two were more or less identical, with the only significant changes being (a) Thin Air is now a 2 charge ability rather than a 15 sec duration CD, (b) Misery is now damage neutral instead of a minor DPS loss, (c) Assize has a slightly shorter CD of 40 sec instead of 45, (d) WHM now has Aquaveil as a targeted Rampart and Lilybell as a strong oGCD tool that is MOST useful (though not ONLY useful) for mulit-hit attacks that don't happen often. Overall, it was one of the least changed Jobs from ShB to EW, with most of the changes being well received.

Regardless, taken together, the post-SB/5.0 and on paradigm version of WHM (also perhaps known as the "post Aero 3 removal" versions) have a combined 56.5% approval. Further, "No Rework" (20%) + "Minor Rework" (37%) has a total of 57%, so on par with that.

But then look at SCH and AST.

SCH, in stark contrast to WHM, has 41.4% preferring SB (vs 15.3% for WHM) and a further 29.9% preferring HW. Taken together, that's a resounding 71.3% that prefer the HW/SB era. Only 2.3% preferred ShB, on par with the amount that preferred ARR. 46.8% want a "Major Rework", and when "Total Overhaul" (14.7%) is added in, that's 61.5% that want large changes to the Job, and clearly the SB iteration is VASTLY preferred. Only 9.2% want no rework and only 24.1%, a respectable minority but still a minority, prefer EW's incarnation of the Job the best. And unlike WHM, it can't lean on ShB's numbers to shore that up into a majority that like the post-SB paradigm.

AST is even more stark, and has the lowest approval (4.74). The prefer-SB version is ALREADY an outright majority of 55.6%. Adding in HW's 12.3% brings this up to 67.9%. Not quite SCH's 71.3%, but pretty high. Tellingly, there's not even a SINGLE vote for "No Rework" at this time, with "Major Rework" (45.0%) + "Total Overhaul" (29.0%) being a whopping 74% together.

It's pretty clear, despite SCH having a slightly higher approval rating than the "vanilla flavor" WHM that there's a strong desire for it to receive a significant rework back to something resembling the SB era, and AST's are desperate for a major shakeup as well.

WHMs, by contrast, seem to be relatively content, with a majority preferring the post-SB world (granted, SB WHM and the initial iteration of the "Lily" system...was pretty bad (the only era WHMs absolutely preferred less than SB was ARR; SB and ShB being tied at the moment) and wanting to see only minor changes to the Job (a lot of people seem to want Aero 3 and some mention more mitigation/party utility, but much beyond that is kind of vague).

And SGE, as a kind of "control group"(?), is oddly also the most popular (5.47), with 29.3% wanting "No Rework", 32.0% wanting a "Mini Rework" (together, these sum to 61.3%, a clear majority), vs 30.7% wanting a "Major Rework" and 8.0% wanting a "Total Overhaul" (taken together, 38.7%)

Which also kind of agrees with a lot of responses from those long-form question survey responses, which often said WHM and SGE people enjoyed as-is and only wanted no or minor changes vs SCH and AST, where people seem to be pretty consistent on wanting reworks. AST seems to be the Job most in need/desired of a rework in the game right now.

EDIT2:

Honestly, the entire party frame is a cluttered mess of unimportant but emphasized information and vital information getting de-emphasized for whatever reason.
The grouping is terrible, the vertical and horizontal eye movement is far too high and unintuitive, the contrast between elements but also background and elements is terrible and especially for people with some form of impaired vision it's just horrible.

Agreed. This is true for both party members and bosses/enemies. Do I really need to know SAM has their damage upkeep self-buff up? Maybe that's relevant to AST, but is it to WHM and SGE? Even to SCH? Does the entire party need to know when the PLD gets Divine Might? That RDM has Verstone Ready? On bosses, do I need to know everyone else's DoT is on the target, or only enhancement/enfeeblement effects like Chain Strat or Mug's Vuln Up or Tank Reprisal? I feel like there's a lot of "information bloat" there that isn't really useful, and causes useful information to be lost in the mix.

EDIT3:

Excuse me, I never once insulted you. I called your post maybe disingenuous and I called your argument dumb. But I never once attacked you, the person behind the screen. You, on the other hand, went straight to attack me directly on your 2nd reply to me.

Your exact wording was:

Isn't it a tiny bit disingenuous to bloat WHM's DPS kit by adding both Afflatus Solace and Rapture in there?
...
Now, I don't know you well, so I won't presume your intentions, I'm just pointing out how it looks to an outside observer.

I didn't "went straight to attack (you) directly". Here was my wording:

To an outsider, you look like you...

Well, never mind.

I didn't insult you. I didn't accuse you of anything. I literally used the exact same concept as you did - "To an outsider, you appear to be..." "Just pointing out how it looks to an outsider". And I didn't even finish the thought. When your statement is "I'm not SAYING you're disingenuous, but I'm SAYING I think an OUTSIDE OBSERVER (who happens to be me) would say you are". You were clearly speaking for yourself in the "I'm not going to accuse you of X, but I'm going to put the question out there that you're doing X".

And, that was only AFTER your second post where you said my argument was "dumb".

If you call an argument "dumb", that generally means you're calling the person using it dumb. If you think an argument isn't good, you contest the argument, you don't call it names, especially so base of one as "dumb".

I'd say I responded in-kind, but I didn't even respond in-kind.

So I didn't attack you - the person behind the screen - at any point. Even once you seemed to throw in with one of the top two most toxic people on this forum, I didn't attack you, I only cautioned you that it was a poor decision. I even outright said it in what you quoted:

I stopped because I DON'T want to get into an insult fight with you, despite you suggesting one first completely out of the blue and uncalled for.

.

I already said I don't know you well, if someone else that knows you better gives me advice, why would I refuse it?

Because, as I noted, that person is toxic and even stalks me into other forums and threads to attack me there.

Anyway, you've shown yourself to be very assuming of me and very difficult to discuss anything with,

Forgive me, but when someone says that you SEEM disingenuous, and while saying they won't presume your intentions states how your intentions appear to them anyway before allowing a rebuttal or asking questions that could lead to clarification and then, after that, call a person's points and arguments dumb, and then after THAT, ignore the rebuttal they give to you so you can attack them some more in support of one of the most toxic people around...

...I mean, you can do whatever you want, but that's not a good look.

As for ForsakenRoe, here:

Just want to clarify: I don't know Ren at all, except for 'turns up everywhere with bizarre ideas on how class and encounter design should be, gets yelled at by pretty much everyone, resorts to 'you are all attacking me!!!'' Saw a thread in the DPS section about SMN or something, turns out everyone there was 'attacking' him too because he made the cardinal sin of saying new SMN is fun. Not just that it's fun, though, but wording it in such a way that if anyone else thinks it's not fun, they're wrong (which is probably the actual source of antagonizing).

The thread in question is this one: https://forum.square-enix.com/ffxiv/...implifications

...where there were 3-4 people with the same position as I had, and 5-6 with the opposed position (and several who just chimed in with a neutral post and moved on). There was no "everyone is attacking me", with only 3 people consistently enough doing so that it was even mentioned. At no time did I say "everyone is attacking me!" in that thread, because they weren't. Unlike here where it's an echo chamber, there are actually dissenting views in the DPS and Tank subforums which are allowed to exist and not be dogpiled on.

Nor did I, at any point, say if anyone doesn't think it's fun, they're wrong. I, in fact, said the opposite, on more than one occasion saying I can understand if people don't think it's fun or if it's not fun for them personally. The only thing I said couldn't really be contested was that the Job was fine, which I even defined in the context of being played by a lot of people who (presumably) at least some of them enjoy it, and being balanced such that it isn't being benched from parties. It's able to clear content, has desired utility and damage output, and is enjoyed by a fair amount of people, as well as played by a lot of people. Things that wouldn't be true if a Job was horribly broken to the point it NEEDED desperate fixing.

In other words, I never said anyone who found it unfun was wrong, nor anything even close to that. I made an actual argument (several, in fact) abut what it means for a Job to be in a state of "fine" and that SMN was in it, including metrics and argument.

I didn't even contest anyone directly attacking me until it began to detract from the thread itself, and I did so in [HB] tags so that they wouldn't get the thread derailed by their personal attacks against me, even with their goal seeming to be to derail the thread instead of confronting arguments they didn't seem able to defeat - ad hominem fallacy in its truest form.

.

In other words, ForesakenRoe here completely lied about both me and the situation to serve her interest in misleading you and others. And it's a pretty blatant lie since literally anyone can go over to the thread and see she's lying about it.

...and as of this moment, has (9) likes for telling an abject lie.

Then she has the gall to say:

You can check my and his comment histories though and see who's more trustable (or better yet, don't cos that takes effort, I wouldn't).

After telling an outright lie that you can easily disprove just by skimming the thread.

[Semirhage]

Forgive me, but when someone says that you SEEM disingenuous, and while saying they won't presume your intentions states how your intentions appear to them anyway before allowing a rebuttal or asking questions that could lead to clarification and then, after that, call a person's points and arguments dumb, and then after THAT, ignore the rebuttal they give to you so you can attack them some more in support of one of the most toxic people around...

...I mean, you can do whatever you want, but that's not a good look.

"I never call people names, I just say they SEEM like it and if they take that to mean I called them a name that's just me pointing out facts!"

Jesus Christ you have to have the most convoluted gaslighty passive-aggressive definition of "not actually insulting people" I've ever encountered.

[Renathras]

"I never call people names, I just say they SEEM like it and if they take that to mean I called them a name that's just me pointing out facts!"

Jesus Christ you have to have the most convoluted gaslighty passive-aggressive definition of "not actually insulting people" I've ever encountered.

When a person does a thing, then gets mad at you for doing the same thing?

And you're one to talk, Jesus...

I just called you out and proved you a liar and the best you could do is attack me again? No apologize, not even an attempt to explain it away to save face. Just pretending it didn't happen so you could attack AGAIN. Piece of work, you are.

[ForsakenRoe]

Well guys, it's gg, it's over, master detective Renathras has outed me, I am in fact a serial liar and my whole reason for coming to these forums was to brainwash everyone and amass an army to destroy EA /s

I don't even know what you'd claim I'd gain from me lying, but apparently 9 people bought it. Whatever 'it' is. Probably 'nothing' since I don't intend to lie. Maybe I'm 'slightly misinformed or lack certain crucial evidence' at times, but I'm not purposely saying things that are the opposite of 'the truth'. When I read the last 5-10 pages of that thread, I see a lot of people saying NewSMN is bland and hollow and needs more to it, and you saying 'New SMN is fine.' like it's a matter of fact, and that if someone feels otherwise (ie that it is not fine) then they're wrong. Then people start disagreeing vehemently with you (probably because your tone) and then it's a full blown war. Thus, I draw the conclusion that 'a lot of people are not happy with SMN as is, and Ren has gone and stirred them all up by very heavily implying they are wrong to feel that way via the way he worded his response to them'. How else was I meant to read that, 'they hated him because he told them the truth'?

BTW, do you have anything beyond 'you're using logical fallacy X' or 'stop lying (usually in all caps, with a period after each word)'?

And this is just Grade A disgusting: "I get what you're trying to do, you're trying to exhaust under the false pretense of "good faith discussion" where you're just intentionally obtuse, or skirting the actual argument. Timeless-classic online argumentative strategy."

STOP.
LYING.

Oh.

Oh right, and from not very long ago at all (I was actually looking for something else but I gave up)

"Otherwise you just seem like someone who hates change for the sake of hating change."(note, this is Ty) - My DUDE! Stop. Lying! I JUST GOT DONE TELLING YOU why you're wrong about this. And I'll note YOU DIDN'T ANSWER THE QUESTION.

They should put this in a museum. Telling someone they're lying for expressing their opinion on how you're wording things is definitely 'a strat'. What's next, calling it 'fake news'? Or that you're the target of a 'hoax'? Pretty sure you already used 'witchhunt' at some point. Just get the whole DJT playbook out there

And if you're tired of me or Ty or Semi or Skellington or any number of people who disagree with your viewpoints 'lying' all the time, there's apparently a blocklist feature in the forums. I know right, I had no idea either. In fact, I'd encourage you to block me. If my mere presence is so overpoweringly toxic that it causes stress or anxiety in anyone, I'd prefer it if they blocked me because contrary to what you might think, I don't want to cause someone to have medical complications with my suggestions of 'what if WHM had extra DPS buttons'.

Wonder how many likes this 'full of lies' post will net me, and what I'll spend them on

[Icecylee]

Man, I know posting onto the forums really doesn't amount to much more than pissing into the wind either way, but like... is there honestly, really, *any* point in this long winded Blame Game shit? just tell each other to fuck off and get onto whatever other points you were making instead of writing up treatises on why so and so is actually the meaner/more decietful/bully/whatever the hell like the person you're faux debating is going to go "oh, yeah, you're right and i'm wrong i am the villian" or w/e you're expecting to happen. Would save everyone a couple headaches and definitely some time, not to mention stop derailing threads that are approaching being interesting.

[Elucesta]

Tbh, I think the problem is that they split the healers into 2 different groups, if white mage has less hp regenerative abilities and potency yet more mitigation tools, along with just a second damage spell aside from misery and dia that would be a complete kit. Most of the games encounter design for healers is rather predictable, so having more mitigation tools or vice versa for barrier healers plus more damage buttons would provide more engagement. Meaning you'll have more proactive tools, more throughput regen tools, and more damage tools. Making it more well rounded, this is kind of why I like sage so much. Its has a bit of everything.