AST - Tips On Destroying Swords in " A Requiem for Heroes" ?

[ty_taurus]

You do realize many people WON'T speak up in their own defense, right?

And I often DO complement, much more so than...well, never mind. Doesn't matter anyway. /shrug

Anyway, I said what I needed to say, you do you.

I never said you don't compliment at all, but more often than not, that "compliment" comes packaged with very tart corrective language. We had this conversation nearly a year ago when I was being very patient and trying to communicate with you. There are times where you say things that are fine, and other times where you take something someone says and turn in into something it isn't, and that's what's frustrating, not because you have a different opinion.

[Renathras]

I never said you don't compliment at all, but more often than not, that "compliment" comes packaged with very tart corrective language. We had this conversation nearly a year ago when I was being very patient and trying to communicate with you. There are times where you say things that are fine, and other times where you take something someone says and turn in into something it isn't, and that's what's frustrating, not because you have a different opinion.

The thing is, this goes both ways, as I told you then.

You often interpret things I say as insulting or the most negative way possible, even when I'm very explicit they are not and am not doing so, and persist in that belief even if I explicitly lay it out again and tell you honestly I'm not doing what you've decided I'm doing. Moreover, this also is used by you guys against me on a REALLY consistent basis. By this point, I just ignore or gloss over a lot of it. In that discussion a year ago, you might recall while you were telling me it might be the way I post, that I pointed out others were doing the same thing and you didn't feel any need to address it (because they are on "your side" of things), and further, in exasperation asked if there was literally anything I could do short of just being silent or agreeing with you guys, and you guys couldn't come up with anything because any disagreements were unwelcome. (As I recall, when I asked that, the thread devolved into a bunch of side issues to avoid addressing it). And I asked why it was acceptable for you guys to do it to me, but not me to do it, which was also met with crickets.

Anyway, it was then that I gave up on trying that, since I realized there was no way to do it and I couldn't hope for consistency or for you guys to police yourselves the way you were trying to police me, so I just kinda went with that as the new normal/recognized reality.

.

But as I said then, when I explicitly tell you I'm not making some snide or backhanded comment, you can and should actually believe me and you were reading "tart" language into it.

From me, it is a complement when I say you're well meaning and being benevolent.

[ty_taurus]

The thing is, this goes both ways, as I told you then.

There is a difference between criticism and defamation. Criticism, whether about ideas, methodology, behavior, etc is neutral language meant to address a conflict or weak point in something. Defamation is heavily opinionated language based on nothing with the intention to harm or belittle someone. If a person is being rude, saying "hey, you're being really rude right now. You're out of line for saying that." Is criticism. "Get your ugly face out of this chatroom you dumb hog." is defamation.

Over the last year, it feels as though conversations have a distorted perspective of what is criticism and what is defamation, where criticism is anything you say to address others you don't agree with and defamation is anything anyone else says to you when they don't agree with you. You only speak in criticisms, everyone else only speaks in defamation, even when the language is identical. I've also used your exact language you've used to me to address something you've said, and you still saw that as defamation--something you were adamant was purely constructive criticism when you spoke it to me. You can, of course, deny that and accuse me of lying and being inflammatory which I'm used to at this point, but why not actually at least consider "what if what he's saying is genuinely how he feels about the way I talk and approach conversations?"

If you want to be the better person in the argument, how come you've never even said something like, "Alright, I'm sorry that's how it came out. This is what my intention was, can we move on?" Even if the person you're speaking to is just as capable of doing the same, how come you've never done that here? Why not be the bigger person regardless of who's right or wrong? You can throw that back at me, sure, but that doesn't mean you aren't capable of that as well.

Anyway, it was then that I gave up on trying that, since I realized there was no way to do it and I couldn't hope for consistency or for you guys to police yourselves the way you were trying to police me, so I just kinda went with that as the new normal/recognized reality.

This also isn't actually true because when we tried having that conversation way back when, my answer was that you should stop responding to a point someone has given and then immediately declaring your stance as objectively correct as if written in stars themselves, and taking everything said to you that counters things you've said or comments trying to correct something you've misunderstood as defamation and gang-like behavior--that "your side" mentality you mentioned. Because shockingly, there have been cordial conversations with other players who do not hold the same views regularly.

For example, like a week ago or so there was someone who didn't fully read a post I made in regards to the auto-battle concept and was making a comment about ways it wouldn't work based on misinformation. Rather than writing a 1200 word response on what a lying and deceitful person she was for not reading my post correctly, I very simply tried to clarify what I thought she didn't read correctly in a few words without any "you're actually wrong and this is why" type language, and the conversation resolved peacefully. Why is it that can happen with other players, but not with you?

[Renathras]

I'd rather NOT hash this out in this other fellow's thread, but here we are... <_<

...

It's so weird because I feel like I could say this exact same post to you...

Also, I HAVE said "I see we have a misunderstanding, here's what me saying that means..." to try and clear things up. I've done that MANY times. I think I've even had a "I'm sorry I wasn't clear enough/etc" or the like some of those times, too. I'll also note that I've never received that from anyone here other than, oddly enough, Roe. Though that was a post in General, so. And I have FREQUENTLY been the "Can we move on?" person. A few people have said it on rare occasion, but I've said that many times here. I've also used the exact language you've used to me and you saw it as defamation, so again, this works both ways. (Also, I'd have to see the specific case, but as I recall, you tried to use my words against me to make that point and I either (a) didn't see it as defamation, stymieing your gotcha effort, or (b) pointed out how it doesn't apply - I KNOW I've done that several times.)

.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but:

"For example, like a week ago or so there was someone who didn't fully read a post I made in regards to the auto-battle concept and was making a comment about ways it wouldn't work based on misinformation. Rather than writing a 1200 word response on what a lying and deceitful person she was for not reading my post correctly, I very simply tried to clarify what I thought she didn't read correctly in a few words without any "you're actually wrong and this is why" type language, and the conversation resolved peacefully. Why is it that can happen with other players, but not with you?"

Do you not recall a few weeks ago when you admitted - after arguing with me for several posts - that you just WEREN'T READING my posts? Where I very clearly said what you were saying I didn't to the point you were lying about what I said on the basis of not having even read my posts to know they were a lie? To the point SOMEONE ELSE in the thread pointed out to you it was not a good look? Not only did you not apologize for it, you took it as a point of pride in the face of being called out for it - by someone else who was not me - even after I pointed out with multiple posts to make sure it was entirely clear what I HAD said (that you hadn't read) and you kept insisting you were right (at first) then defended yourself not reading it and actually tried to use you not reading it as an attack against me, and then finally insisted I was calling you a dog (when I wasn't AND told you outright I wasn't) so that you could avoid responsibility and save face without an apology?

When a simple "Oh, I'm sorry. Yeah, I probably should have read your posts before contesting them and I did accidentally misrepresent your views because I didn't read them" would have diffused the entire situation? Or, baring that, just NOT having replied "countering" posts that you didn't read and where you were saying the same thing I was saying in my posts and saying that I wasn't (hence lying about my positions)?

Why is it that can happen with other players, but not with you?

.

I feel like I could take the exact post you just wrote and say it to you. In fact, I think I will:

.

There is a difference between criticism and defamation. Criticism, whether about ideas, methodology, behavior, etc is neutral language meant to address a conflict or weak point in something. Defamation is heavily opinionated language based on nothing with the intention to harm or belittle someone. If a person is being rude, saying "hey, you're being really rude right now. You're out of line for saying that." Is criticism. "Get your ugly face out of this chatroom you dumb hog." is defamation.

Over the last year, it feels as though conversations have a distorted perspective of what is criticism and what is defamation, where criticism is anything you say to address others you don't agree with and defamation is anything anyone else says to you when they don't agree with you. You only speak in criticisms, everyone else only speaks in defamation, even when the language is identical. I've also used your exact language you've used to me to address something you've said, and you still saw that as defamation--something you were adamant was purely constructive criticism when you spoke it to me. You can, of course, deny that and accuse me of lying and being inflammatory which I'm used to at this point, but why not actually at least consider "what if what he's saying is genuinely how he feels about the way I talk and approach conversations?"

If you want to be the better person in the argument, how come you've never even said something like, "Alright, I'm sorry that's how it came out. This is what my intention was, can we move on?" Even if the person you're speaking to is just as capable of doing the same, how come you've never done that here? Why not be the bigger person regardless of who's right or wrong? You can throw that back at me, sure, but that doesn't mean you aren't capable of that as well.

.

As I said to you over a year ago, I like the way you think, and I think we both think and approach problems similarly. But somehow, dealing with you in particular is infuriating because you do those things so much and you're free with your criticism, but you don't do it yourself and you don't offer those criticisms to people with whom you agree, only those you do not to make them look bad. And it's frustrating trying to talk to you when you forget things that I've said, overlook faux pas of yourself or people you agree with, never seem willing to apologize or even back off a point when mistaken (much less admit it), but will constantly shift the burden to me and that I should do all these things. In general, if you know better than someone, the onus is on you to act responsibly that way, not to insist others do it while not doing it yourself and refusing to do it unless/until they do.

It just makes it frustrating because you're so close to someone I could have good conversations with if it wasn't for you seeing everything as an attack/insult/defamation that isn't, and if you would be consistent in your moralism across everyone, not just the people you disagree with. (Neither of these points are unique to you, btw, just you are a frequent offender of both.)

Like I have great conversations with people in the Tank, DPS, and General threads, so it's not "just me". It's something about HERE and the people here that's different, and you guys even act a bit different when posting in those other areas where you don't have this perception of majority somehow.

[Sebazy]

Like I have great conversations with people in the Tank, DPS, and General threads, so it's not "just me". It's something about HERE and the people here that's different, and you guys even act a bit different when posting in those other areas where you don't have this perception of majority somehow.

Possibly because the other roles don't have as much grounds to feel like they've been consistently s%*t on for the last few expansions?

[GrimGale]

Possibly because the other roles don't have as much grounds to feel like they've been consistently s%*t on for the last few expansions?

Which, incidentally makes the healer community great for reply fishing. You get an emotionally commited comunity with a long ongoing grudge. Especially considering how generalized the consensus is regarding the problems around healing are.

[Renathras]

Possibly because the other roles don't have as much grounds to feel like they've been consistently s%*t on for the last few expansions?

Is this true, though?

On the Tank forum, this topic has come up (I posted a thread about it and people went on around 10 pages discussing it) and their conclusion seemed to be that Tanks were in the same general boat as Healers, they just kind of stoically accepted it.

...perhaps fitting given Tanks being...well...Tanks. Stoicism fits the mindset, I suppose. But their position seemed to be "We know our role is what it is, SE isn't going to change it until they feel like it, we kind of don't like it, but we're just going to deal with it."

[fulminating]

The main difference is that even though stance dancing and aggro management and unique cooldowns and the entire dark knight identity have been removed, they still have downtime activities (build gauge, burst phase) for when they’re not mitigating. Just being able to feel like they’re meaningfully contributing is something they have that healers lack. Even when doing reasonable damage it still feels like hitting mist.
As an aside two of the tanks are raving lunatic hippies, one’s a homeless knight and the other is terribly indecisive. Personally I wouldn’t have chosen stoic as my descriptor.

[Sebazy]

Is this true, though?

For starters, it's neither yours nor mine place to tell anyone how they should feel about something.

Secondly, sure tanks have lost a fair bit of complexity. Boss positioning isn't really much of a thing anymore, but above all else, their core gameplay loop and entire facets of the role haven't regressed in the same way as healers have. Imagine if PLD launched in it's current iteration and then Shadowbringers hacked it right down to what it was in ARR. Now imagine if in Stormblood, Tanks defensive cooldowns got yeeted off the role entirely and dropped onto various DPS jobs (That for the most part didn't want them). Do you think they would be happy with that? I don't. IMO that perception is a big part of why so many old guard healers are so fed up at this point.

To be clear, I'm not sitting here trying to tell anyone that healers are the hardest done by role. I'm pointing out that it's a very easy assumption to make if you've been around and actively playing the game at a ~BCOB & Savage level since launch.

As for 'dealing with it'. That was the prevailing mentality back in Stormblood. 'Things will get better!', 'wait for the patch notes', 'wait for the post patch', 'wait for the next expansion!' etcetc. Gradually more and more people got fed up with that and well, here we are.

[ForsakenRoe]

Imagine if PLD launched in it's current iteration and then Shadowbringers hacked it right down to what it was in ARR.

I think it's more like 'imagine if the 6.3 PLD rework came out, and it was 'Goring Blade is a standalone GCD with a 30s CD, Atonement is your spam skill useable without any stacks of Sword Oath, Confiteor can be used after every 3rd use of Sheltron, every other damage skill is removed'. At least in ARR PLD had Shield Swipe procs to react to

As for 'dealing with it'. That was the prevailing mentality back in Stormblood. 'Things will get better!', 'wait for the patch notes', 'wait for the post patch', 'wait for the next expansion!' etcetc. Gradually more and more people got fed up with that and well, here we are.

Exactly this, we've been told, whenever there's any concerns about healing requirements being low, how much more healing is added to our kit, etc. 'Just wait for {time} it'll all make sense then'. How many times have we seen the media tour dungeon damage be kinda low, and say 'damn this looks like we don't have to heal much' and people go 'just wait they'll make it so hard you'll wish you were getting 5 healing skills in the expansion instead of 3!' and then it's an absolute cakewalk. And then the goalposts move to 'just wait till next raid tier', 'just wait till next expansion', cycle repeats.

After four years of asking 'where's the damage to justify this healing kit' we FINALLY get 'more damage' and it's implemented in the most stupid, hamfisted, ineffective way, that they've probably poisoned the well for the whole idea of 'what if we make stuff do more damage', because now people will go 'oh like Abyssos where all the healers quit? yeh what a shit idea LMAO'.

How did they, in the SAME PATCH, have 'increased healing requirements' in Abyssos that were done 'really bad designwise', and at the same time, Barb EX which increased healing requirements in a 'pretty sensible designwise' way (player skill issues notwithstanding). Why is the battle design so bipolar? Hopefully it's to spread the net as wide as possible with different designs, so they can get feedback on several changes at once. 'Oh, Abyssos was not so well received, but Barb EX was pretty well liked. This shows that healing increase has potential as a solution, but the over-emphasis on mitigation-stacking for the raid was not popular. On the flipside, the faster pace of smaller yet consequential damage instances in the EX trial was more well received. We should try making the next raid more like the EX trial from this patch, and see how well liked it is' something like that. Instead they're likely going to just go 'raid was not well liked, turn the dials back, make next raid like Aspho'