What are things you ENJOY about Healers right now?

[Renathras]

...

So all the people posting in here saying either "nothing at all" or giving really snarky, sarcastic replies weren't doing that until we started talking about "real healers"? (btw, that was Roe, not me). Stuff like:

"Can I get back to you on this? "
"Does the insta-queue for any content count? No? Well... uh..."
"I also like the memories I have of playing SCH and AST. "
"The themes and that's it. "
"SE took everything away that I LIKE about healers."

...all predate the PvP Healer discussion.

And my contribution to that was that I liked AST, I just didn't feel the other three were Healers/played like Healers (because of how little focus they actually have on healing), which wasn't me starting anything. And I'm going to ask you this genuinely, where did I say "except it's wrong"? Did I say it was "wrong" at any point? Didn't I say it was a good thing and I wish the game would embrace it? Isn't that the opposite of saying it's "wrong"?

I "dug my heels in" when they "dug their heels in". Defending a position is not "digging heels". My general paradigm is that when I say something and someone challenges it, I try to explain why I think the thing I think. The way my mind works, I like understanding reasons for things, and even if I may not fully agree with someone, if they tell me why they think what they do/how they're defining things, I can say "Ah, that makes sense, and I can see you're self-consistent with that position, even if I may not fully agree with that definition". It's why I point out to, for example Ty, that my position has been self-consistent, and it's why I state what it is I think Healers are. It's why I started that thread a few weeks ago asking people what they thought Healers were and why they fit into the Trinity, since I think part of the consistent friction here is in how we all view the concept of "Healer" with some (me, mainly) viewing it as "thing that heals" and other people thinking, in their words not mine, of "Supports".

I didn't derail the thread arguing semantics. That was done in response to me. The specific post that started the thread derail was this one:

They all are actual healers with good healing throughput (other than SGE in terms of healing throughput because most of the required healing is done through Pneuma and LB). Rather than saying you're looking for "an actual healer that can handle damage", you're looking more for "a pure healer that doesn't need to interact with the enemies to handle damage" because that's what all the PvE healers oGCD toolkits resembles.

Were you okay with this post? If so, why was it acceptable and mine not, since it is what started the back and forth countering people's views/argument. Why is THAT post okay, but my post before it (or after it?) not okay? And where did I talk about "how much older MMOs worked"?

But you're not really above that either.

Thing is, I want to actually discuss topics. I post a lot of threads in here for various discussions to try to get to the heart of various matters. Hell, my proposed SCH change thread seemed to have been pretty well liked overall.

And no, going "i do like this ONE thing, even if all other three are stupid things i don't like and am going to pretend they're a separate role that doesn't exist" at the start of your rants doesn't really make it better or more in the spirit of positivity.

Again, now do these:

"Can I get back to you on this? "
"Does the insta-queue for any content count? No? Well... uh..."
"I also like the memories I have of playing SCH and AST. "
"The themes and that's it. "
"SE took everything away that I LIKE about healers."

.

I guess I'd just like some consistency here.

EDIT:

Then there's stuff like this:

Ah, the eternal question of how to deal with trolls. Do you engage and fall into the trap of giving the troll attention, or do you ignore them and allow their statements to stand unoposed?

You know I'm not a troll. You might find me an ass or antagonistic, but you've seen me engage in good faith discussions and try to start them plenty. Yet see that?

Yet will you say that person shouldn't have said that?

Maybe you will...

Huh, must have been the wind.

See? But again, I don't suspect consistency - I would be pleasantly surprised by it, though.