The Healers should be reworked? New player perspective.

[Renathras]

If I ask you if you want, for example, more money and you answer no, does this mean you would be upset if given more money?

Don't use a biased example. If I ask you if you want more vanilla ice cream, and you say no, does that mean you want more vanilla ice cream? We agree the answer is no.

Does that mean you wouldn't mind more vanilla ice cream?

You are saying it MUST mean you wouldn't mind vanilla ice cream, and Ty is suggesting it means MOST PEOPLE by that are saying they wouldn't mind more. He's citing people aren't saying that they want LESS ice cream, so that must mean they're fine with more even if they don't outright want more.

But what if you would mind? What if you like chocolate (party buffing) or strawberry (movement options) and genuinely can't stand the taste of vanilla (more damage buttons)?
Alternatively, what if you've just eaten two scoops of vanilla (feel you have plenty of attack buttons to satisfy you) and are sated right now and don't want more ice cream in a general sense, or perhaps wouldn't mind a different flavor but don't want more vanilla specifically?

According to you, ALL of those people wouldn't mind more vanilla, even when at least some, and probably most, very likely would.

Your interpretation is that we can assume everyone who didn't say they DON'T want less ice cream MUST either want more vanilla or be okay with more vanilla, even though there was a question specifically asking if people wanted more vanilla and these people did not say they wanted more.

.

The problem is that we need more nuanced question AND answer options in order to parse what that distinction is.

That is the only way to know what these other people think. Otherwise you're just putting words in their mouth to get a higher support in a survey whose questions and sample/respondents already lean in your favor. That's the thing, this survey already is (mostly) tilted as much as it could be in your favor without blatantly putting a fat thumb on the scale and forcing the result to you, and you're still determined to insist your position is even more supported when the reality is that it is less.

What we DO know is that only 79.X% of the survey respondents asked for more attacking options, even though everyone had the option to ask for more if they wanted them. We also know that some people answering that option didn't want MORE attack abilities, they just wanted them at earlier levels (Misery was often cited as something people want WHM to get earlier than it does). And we know that ~20% do not want more attack actions, with 2-4% wanting less.

We do NOT know that the 20% would be fine or wouldn't mind. That we do not know, and cannot know based on the way the poll was set up. So they cannot be cited as supporting or being ambivalent to a position that you didn't poll them on "are you ambivalent?", and which they had the opportunity to say they supported and they did not do so. You cannot even assume ambivalence - as I said, I did not answer less attacking abilities (I think we have about the right amount) - and I'm clearly not ambivalent. So we know that at least one person in that category is NOT ambivalent/would be fine with more damage abilities. And as none of you are likely in that camp (I'd wager you all said more attack options), you cannot authoritatively speak to the feelings of this group in any way, whereas I'm actually a representative/member of it.

Since the survey did not ask a question to allow us to know that, you can't assume it. The only thing you can assume/know is that 80% want more dps actions and 20% do not.

Moreover, even if they WERE all ambivalent - and I stress again they are not - that doesn't mean you should give them more and them just accept it. That's some kind of passive aggressive toxic thing to do to people. "Oh, you didn't say you DIDN'T want this beer, so I'm giving you this beer, even though you said you wanted a soda, because _I_ wanted a beer and didn't want to drink alone..."

.

Additionally - it's not "at absolute most...20%". 20% is at absolute least (well, 16%). Given that the survey is from a sample biased to be pro-more attack, it means the general community population will be more anti-damage than this survey, whatever the survey number happens to be. 16% is the lowest we can say don't want more damage actions, which is 1/5th of the total, and again, enough to make the argument to ensure they have a Healer Job that suits their playstyle.

.

Finally, it's not "barebones" or any other insults you want to give it. Some people DON'T LIKE dps rotations. The people who don't like DPS rotations tend to play Jobs that do not have DPS rotations. It's like if you don't like buffing party members, you don't play AST or DNC or BRD, because their gameplay is based on buffing, or how if you don't like drawing agro and Tanking, you don't play a Tank.

This should not be a hard concept to understand, yet so many people on these forums seem to have some kind of mental block preventing them from accessing this ridiculously simple concept:

Many people do not want a dps rotation, which is why they do not play a DPS Job. If they wanted a DPS rotation, they could play a DPS Job. There are SOME Healers who ALSO want a DPS rotation, but there are many who do not. This isn't being lazy, it's not being braindead, it's not any of the insulting words you want to apply to it. All it is is people who like something you do not and don't like something that you do. My position is that they should have the option to play their way and be optimal and you should have the option to play your way and be optimal. Your position is that ONLY you should be able to play the way you want, and other people either should be forced to play your way or should suffer. That's not a good position to hold by any metric. It's a very very BAD position.

But given how abjectly selfish and antagonistic people in here have been to the idea, I'm leaning more and more towards you just shouldn't get anything at all at this point. If you so oppose letting people who like gameplay now continue to experience it, then I'm ready to say "So you get nothing. You LOSE. Good DAY, sir." https://www.youtube.com/shorts/8rVY26lZItM

The status quo is Healer Jobs as they are now. THAT is the baseline position from which we bargain and seek compromise.

The status quo IS NOT that all the Healer Jobs get changed to have more DPS and I have to argue a case to save one of them from being butchered by you guys.

The status quo - what happens if no compromise is reached - is that NOTHING CHANGES. And YOU have to make the case to change ANY of the Healers, and have to make the case in absolute terms for changing all of them. You don't get to rest on your position as the default and the onus on me to oppose it. The onus is on you to make the case that each and every Healer MUST change, and that the game will be horrible or bad or everyone will leave if even ONE Healer does not: A case no one has made rationally (calling something "braindead" is not a case, even if it were true, which it isn't).

People HAVE made a case for why SOME Healers should be changed, which is why I agree on that point. People have NOT made a case for why ALL of them MUST be changed. Again, calling something "braindead", "barebones", "baby", "meme", "Sylphie", or so on is not making a case.

But at this point, I'm on the verge of holding the opinion that if you're unwilling to share the pool, and you're going to fight with other people over who gets to use the pool, then perhaps YOU get kicked out of the pool, not everyone else swimming happily who is willing to share with you.