What if Tanks were designed like Healers?

[ForsakenRoe]

It doesn't matter why SGE is the way it is, what matters is that it has always BEEN the way it is. This is the only incarnation it's had. It didn't lose anything such that jaded vets pine for getting it back. It doesn't have jaded vets who have played it since 3.0 or 2.0 or 1.4 (whenever Jobs were added to 1.X) who have gone through all the ups and downs and seen all the various iterations of their Jobs, what they lost and gained and lost other stuff to eclipse the gains. It doesn't have those jaded vets pining for what once was, or feeling betrayed by their Job moving away from what it once was, because it never was before this (6.0-Present) to have been "once was".

Instead it has jaded vets from other healers (WHM SCH AST mains) hoping that they can finally have some depth and complexity back, added via a new job (but that's acceptable as the monkey's paw bargain they have to make to get that depth), and instead it has the same amount of depth (or maybe even less in some regards) than what we've already got. The 'breath of fresh air' was just more of the same, and that's why people are jaded about it, not because of losing an older beloved incarnation

and to be fair, from the numbers I could find, SB was the lowest point of Healers, even lower than ShB, by percent of the playerbase

Is that the numbers that we have seen from Wayback Machine, that you yourself said 'probably is not reliable data', and even if it WAS reliable, showed that 'as a percentage of the total playerbase', HW or early SB (depending when the data was collected in the year) was the highest percentage we've had, even in comparison to today? Cleric Stance was not an issue because it forced people to do damage, it was an issue because it forced people to gimp their healing output in order to do damage. SB fixed this by making it a throughput CD, and having damage spells scale from Mind. There was zero reason to remove it and the damage GCDs we lost in the SHB transition beyond 'we want healers to focus more on healing' and they've shown they can't actually threaten competent players with healing requirements without completely boning the casuals

[ty_taurus]

Actually, if Yoshida did give me an ultimatum, I'd say fix all of them or fix none of them. This is your company's project you're gambling with, not mine.

[Renathras]

Instead it has jaded vets from other healers

Yeah, but that's the point: If we change the other three back to their SB incarnations in 7.0 (not sure WHMs would be thrilled about being worthless in basically all content, but I guess they already are compared to other Healers, so nothing will have changed there; they'll just be the one Healer unable to clear some content, I guess? Because apparently that's good game design!), then those jaded vets from those other Healer Jobs would simply be able to pick up their old Job and no longer need the new one.

Is that the numbers that we have seen from Wayback Machine,

Correct, the only numbers we have as no one else was able to provide any alternate data-set.

Note that, at the time, most of the playerbase did not do Savage (or even Extremes) and large portions of the Healer community used Cleric Stance for soloing only. It's also worth noting that DPS Jobs in HW made up only 53% of the Jobs overall (7/13) while they make up 59% in ShB (10/17) and still make up 58% today (11/19). By contrast, Healers made up 23% (3/13), 18% (3/17), and 21% (4/19) of the Jobs in those same periods. So if Job ratio is at all active in player role count (and it does likely have some effect; new Jobs in a role do tend to boost participation in that role for at least a little while), then one would expect the number of Healers to decrease going from HW to SB to ShB. Despite this, Healer numbers actually seemed to have gone up from SB to ShB, which also opposes the narrative that Healers as a whole were alienated by the ShB changes and left the role. That seems not to have occurred, and SB seems to have been the low point.

It'd be nice if we had some kind of official census, though, to really see trends more accurately instead of having to use imperfect metrics in attempts to piece together things.

[ty_taurus]

Note that, at the time, most of the playerbase did not do Savage (or even Extremes) and large portions of the Healer community used Cleric Stance for soloing only.

And what's wrong with that? Isn't that literally what many of us have been advocating for? Tank-adjacent DPS gameplay that is ultimately optional in 95% of the game that way anyone who doesn't care to use them doesn't have to?

[ForsakenRoe]

Yeah, but that's the point: If we change the other three back to their SB incarnations in 7.0 (not sure WHMs would be thrilled about being worthless in basically all content, but I guess they already are compared to other Healers, so nothing will have changed there; they'll just be the one Healer unable to clear some content, I guess? Because apparently that's good game design!)

Modern class design choices inspired by design philosophy from 4.0 (and following a consistent evolution upon that earlier framework) =/= 'copy paste 4.0 exactly, including the parts that were completely nonfunctional'

I don't think anyone who says 'lets go back to 4.0 style healer design' is implying 'and by that I mean 'make WHM lilies absolute trash again'', and to try and imply as much just shows how desperate the search for a Gotcha is getting

Let's do it, make SGE the one that gets 'left behind' with the justification that it has no previous incarnation to go back to. Just retcon the lore to say 'learning how to be a Sage is actually really damn easy', and retcon all the Fanfest interviews and say 'actually people who wanted a challenge from healers can now get a challenge from the healers, and for the people who don't want a challenge from healers, we're adding a new one which caters to that'

[ty_taurus]

Had a funny thought: If each healer was an ice cream flavor, what flavor would they be?

SGE: Plain
WHM: Plain, unsweetened
SCH: Plain, lactose-free
AST: Plain with sprinkles

[Aravell]

Reply

Maybe you're a kind person, I won't dispute that, I've never met you, but that's irrelevant to the discussion, I'm talking about the air of superiority and high ground you take.

You may have said you were fine with SCH and AST returning to their old kits, but that hasn't always been your position. You've also said that jobs don't need "needless complexity" on occasion when some others have experienced wanting other HW/SB jobs back. I'm also not saying that it's fine to piss off others, but the way you argue is that you seem to care more about the EW players because the HW and SB players have already lost what they had and the EW players would lose it now, that's not right, either care about both equally or none at all.

Get over MYself? Get over what? I've never put myself above others, I've never flexed my ego and knowledge over other people, these are things that you've done.

Just because you show that you empathise with others doesn't mean you actually do care. You also are arguing for your self-interests, note that I never once said that you were selfish, I said you were arguing for your self-interests, if you had no self-interest in this topic, you would have no reason to even be here arguing at all.

I don't think you're some kind of demon, I genuinely do not dislike you at all, I even agree with some of your points in the past.

Look, I've disagreed with Roe and Ty in the past, they never attacked me or vice versa, we've always debated on equal ground, maybe YOU should think long and hard about why people constantly attack you, it's not for your views, it's the way you sometimes elevate yourself to make your argument look better, it's the way you often quote the silent majority to win stalemates. I think it's disgusting that people dogpile you, but you also have to admit that the way you present your argument can be bad. Also, please stop taking the high ground because the current design of the game supports you, it won't always do so, nothing lasts forever.

[ForsakenRoe]

Had a funny thought: If each healer was an ice cream flavor, what flavor would they be?

SGE: Plain
WHM: Plain, unsweetened
SCH: Plain, lactose-free
AST: Plain with sprinkles

Oh no no not again please not the hot wings analogy again

it's the way you often quote the silent majority to win stalemates.

The best part about quoting the 'silent majority' is that you don't ever need to find out what they actually said, they're silent, they didn't say anything, you can just make up whatever crap you like and claim you're the voice of the people. It's what annoys me about politicians all the time, they claim 'the people want us to focus on X', and every poll that gets done says that they want Y, which atm in my country seems to be 'get tf out of office and let competent people fix the mess we're in'. The words 'we are delivering on the people's priorities' has gotten so stale it's got mold growing on the corners of it, and it's the same here. 'The people want simpler healing rotations' says the Voice of the People. But when you actually ask 'the people', as with that survey, the ones who bother to respond seem to want the exact opposite, and want slightly more complex damage rotations (not DPS level, just 'sort of approaching tank maybe' level). So the question is, if SE is designing these rotations for the 'silent majority', how do they know that the 'silent majority' wanted this, rather than it being a case of 'this is what we're given, I guess we try to make do with it', being as said 'silent majority' is, well, silent?

[Aravell]

The best part about quoting the 'silent majority' is that you don't ever need to find out what they actually said, they're silent, they didn't say anything, you can just make up whatever crap you like and claim you're the voice of the people.

I think quoting the silent majority on something is killing your own argument. Like you said, no one knows what they actually think. They're also not some amorphous blob hivemind that think the same thing, attributing any one thing to the majority is a futile effort. Regarding the state of healers, the truth is probably that people simply do not care, they're likely fine one way or another, those who aren't fine are the ones that speak out.

[Renathras]

And what's wrong with that? Isn't that literally what many of us have been advocating for? Tank-adjacent DPS gameplay that is ultimately optional in 95% of the game that way anyone who doesn't care to use them doesn't have to?

What you've been asking for is generally something required to clear content that people run. Note that far more people run Extremes and Savages now than did then. Not that anyone's asking for Cleric back, but like the changes you propose aren't for use in solo content only, etc.

Modern class design choices inspired by design philosophy from 4.0 (and following a consistent evolution upon that earlier framework) =/= 'copy paste 4.0 exactly, including the parts that were completely nonfunctional'

I know that. Otherwise I wouldn't suggest restoring SCH and AST's kits to SB so often.

I am curious, none of you have a gold or better sub to the forbidden abacus by chance, do you?

Reason I'm asking is, I kind of want to find what the average Savage Healer button presses per minute were back then, but they archived everything prior to ShB. Loaded up Chaos (as per my norms, I like looking at the first fights of tiers as that best gives the best idea of "people have this down and optimized, here's what that looks like"), but then it gave me that message. I was curious how many more non-Stone GCDs WHM was using at the time as compared to today. Kinda sucks the info isn't available, as it would be interesting to compare the Healers directly. Some people here love sharing graphs to show how many Glare/Broil/etc they cast, but it'd be neat to see what that compared to at the time/how much more or less GCD focus was in the kits and how many GCD heals were actually used to break it up at all.

Oh no no not again please not the hot wings analogy again

Much as I love vanilla ice cream, I'm inclined to agree.

Maybe you're a kind person, I won't dispute that, I've never met you, but that's irrelevant to the discussion, I'm talking about the air of superiority and high ground you take.

When it comes, specifically, to this topic, it's not an air. I'm completely open and transparent about what I want and the why of it. I think it's good for the game - and indeed, ANY game - to have variable difficulties. I believe in a Trinity like this, that means at least one from each role being simple, at least one being complex, and any additional entries being somewhere between the two. I think this makes the game most accessible to the most people, has the highest likelihood of every role having at least one playstyle a prospective player or someone's friend/family member they're trying to get to play with them can enjoy, and for people like you, it means at least one, and hopefully more, that you can enjoy.

I've never lied about this. I've never obfuscated or tried to hide or mislead about this. It's legitimately my view.

You may have said you were fine with SCH and AST returning to their old kits, but that hasn't always been your position.

Hm...not sure. I've been posting here for a while and my views have evolved over time.

But also, don't confuse different arguments. Saying Jobs don't need "needless complexity" isn't the same thing as saying not to have different skill levels of Jobs or different playstyles/rotations/etc. In general, I don't like pointless busywork. Like PLD has Goring Blade now for pretty much no reason. They could have just baked that damage into the Conf combo and nothing of value would be lost. Expacion and Circle of Scorn are two buttons, why? You always use them together, at the same time, and they're both even AOE at level cap. At least with Fight or Flight and Requiescat you could ARGUE there MIGHT be some case you'd use FoF at range (like say a disengage) and then charge in and use Requiescat...but would you really? You certainly don't want a GCD between them (Shield Lob? Holy Spirit?) as that would just drift your rotation out of sync with buff windows. There's arguably no reason to have two separate buttons there.

On the other hand, WAR's 1-2-3 -4 makes sense to be AT LEAST two different buttons given the two different effects, and the -2 made sense in the past when the whole thing was branching (1-2-3, 1-4-5), but I dunno. Everyone draws the line a different place.
...which is why different Jobs doing the different things makes sense, as then people can pick the one they vibe with.

but the way you argue is that you seem to care more about the EW players because the HW and SB players have already lost what they had and the EW players would lose it now, that's not right, either care about both equally or none at all.

Considering my position is to ensure there's at least one Job for both camps, I can't see how you think I care more about the one than the other?

Just because you show that you empathise with others doesn't mean you actually do care.

This is true.
What means I actually do care is the fact I actually do care.

You also are arguing for your self-interests,

...while also arguing for yours, something you don't reciprocate.

I'm curious, are you saying I should argue AGAINST myself? What I like is something that at least some other people like as well. Should I be arguing against those people, too?

I'm arguing for everyone's interests. In the most general sense, I'm part of everyone, so you could say I'm arguing for my own, but that's like saying if someone solved world hunger, it would be because they wanted to ensure they had food because they want to ensure everyone has food and they're part of everyone.

if you had no self-interest in this topic, you would have no reason to even be here arguing at all.

So your position is I can't argue for the sake of everyone's self-interests because it means arguing for my own?

Or are you saying that's perfectly fine, in which case why bring it up?

You bring it up like it's a negative, biased, or taints my viewpoint, but then say that to be part of the argument, one must be doing so, meaning it's irrelevant to even point it out.

For my part, again, I've made this clear: I'm arguing for there to be something for everyone.

maybe YOU should think long and hard about why people constantly attack you,

I've been around here a bit. I get treated with a double standard - a lot. People will get onto me for doing something, then like the post of someone who they agree with doing the same thing, and if I point out the dissonance, they'll either ignore it, say they aren't the forum police and don't need to comment on everyone doing said wrong thing (despite them feeling the need to do so with me), or they'll handwave some excuse for not doing so. People in the past berated me for my style or word choices or tone, then praised people on their side using the same tone. People did this once in the middle of me calling someone out for theirtone, insisting that only my tone is bad. And keep in mind, we're all talking in text. People like to point out any time I make even a minor error, and some like to bring it up over and over again for months. But even if one of them gets caught in an outright lie, not only does that go to the wayside, not one of them will condemn their fellow for doing so, and they generally will like and upvote the lying post without a moment's hesitation or remorse.

If it was that, then they'd all be calling out each other and reacting to each other they way they do me.

Policing each other the way they try to do to me.

But they don't.

If they did, our conversations here would likely be far more cordial.

the way you often quote the silent majority to win stalemates

This isn't even something I do. For a while I pointed out what types of things the majority of the playerbase did and such, but I don't even do that anymore. Note I use the words "some" or "many", not "most" or "majority", whenever I mention the playerbase. I believe this is fair. If I said "the majority of healer players enjoy current healer gameplay", you'd probably disagree. We don't know for sure, since we don't have statistics, but I would be talking out my backside since I couldn't prove the claim and that's a statistical claim - more than half.

On the other hand, if I say "some healer players enjoy current healer gameplay", that's a factual statement. Some means "more than one", and there are at least a couple besides me that even post here on the forums semi-regularly. While it's trivial, even 3 would be "some", and "many" is really "some arbitrary number greater than 1" (it isn't mathematically defined in that sense; it's more than a few but generally less than most or a majority). And I'm not really even sure how to talk about the topic of "what people want" without using it.

Especially since my opponents are frequently saying what they think the community as a whole wants as well, and have also appealed to a presumed (and unproven) majority. I'll note, in line with norms about this stuff: You haven't been calling them out for it as far as I can tell.

.

I also agree that designs can change over time - I said this in one of these posts recently (I think in the "Yoshi P visits the forum" thread, but can't remember for sure).

But note the other side is constantly speaking as if from a high ground position. They act as if changing all the Healers is the baseline of what the game WILL do going forward, and any position in opposition to that, such as leaving one alone, has to be argued. That the burden of proof is of those opposing change, rather than the status quo. I also will point out you don't call them out for this, either...

.

I appreciate your post, and I have tried to change how I write here a lot. I try to avoid using ALL CAPS much, despite that being a thing I commonly do on every forum and comments section I've ever used and no one's ever had a problem with it, because the people here said they find it uncomfortable (when I do it, but pretty much only when I do it - the only other case I've seen is someone else who's arguing an even more extreme anti-change position than I has done it; none of them doing it themselves ever generates the hand wringing, mind you). Which is actually a chore since it's more effort to type out [ u ] tags (my go-to in place of caps) and to scrub my posts to get rid of them in most cases. But I put in that extra effort for people (inb4 someone here quotes this to sarcastically mock me for actually making a good faith effort to accommodate them...). As I said, I don't use majority or most, swapping to some or many. When I cite statistics, I present them instead of just giving numbers, and if I calculate things (like percent button use over a period of time), I include the calculations. Note again this isn't something any of them are doing - they will cite things and expect agreement without evidence. I've even reevaluated and altered my entire premise - the idea of the 4 Healers Model was something I came up with in an attempt to bridge the divide and find some kind of common ground that wasn't just "give up everything and quit the game because there's nothing fun to play in it anymore after the changes".

And I've tried many times to strike conciliatory tones. On at least three occasions when people attacked my tone (even while doing the same things they accused me of), I asked what short of just agreeing with them I could do to fix the problem.

Each of the three times, they didn't answer. The threads just went silent or reverted to the previous topic. As if the answer was: There is nothing you can do, no tone you can take, that is acceptable if you have an opposed position; any tone will be attacked as a bad tone because you don't have the right belief/viewpoint/ideology for us here.

This is why I can't admit that "the way I present my argument can be bad", because I try many different ways, tones, and arguments. And they all result in the same pattern. And because the people alienated by me are so no matter what I argue for or how. I've even made some arguments identical to theirs, and been attacked for making the very same argument! At best, I will rarely get a "hell has frozen over, I agree with Ren on something for once" before things go exactly back to the way they were before.

I'm honestly not sure what to change, since the constraints you suggest would amount to just not posting/presenting an argument. /shrug The answer to disagreement can't be "The only way we'll like you is if you don't hold a position you hold."

.

.

.

Broken apart for emphasis and this being the part I really need addressed:

.

.

.

I'd love to know what I can change, but part of the problem is I have made changes, part of the problem is that people don't care or notice them anyway, part of the problem is the things that are supposedly alienating aren't when they do it (meaning you're asking me to argue with one proverbial hand tied behind my back while my opponents are free not to), part of the problem is the others aren't self-policing so if I'm behaving perfectly and get attacked I have to fend off those attacks without responding to them in kind which is somehow interpreted as a sign of weakness, part of the problem is how much people will upvote and cheer attacks on me (and me specifically) and like and upvote those posts even if they are abject lies, and...I think the biggest biggest biggest part is that even if I do everything right, people will just outright put words into my mouth.

Like I don't make the "you aren't real healers" argument. But Semi will consistently bring it up, even though she was the one that made the statement first. She will call me a Sylphie no matter how many times I point out I cast damage spells whenever I have free GCDs to do so (which is often), no matter how many times I point out Sylphie in the game didn't even do what the insult is meant to say, no matter how many times I point out how hurtful it is, no matter how many times it derails and shuts down conversation and is meant to marginalize and delegitimize me and my views, and no one will ever ask her to stop.

No one.

Ever.

Oh no, they upvote those posts.

If Ty gets mad and starts going on tirades against me, instead of asking him to stop, people will condone it talking about how he's so rational and calm, if he's upset, there must be a good reason for it (even when there's not a good reason for it). But if I get frustrated after yet another day of people dogpiling on me and blow my top, it's "Ren's going on another unhinged tirade rant again". Not once does anyone go "Ren's pretty rational a lot and is often conciliatory, maybe we're pushing him too far?". Not once does anyone come to my aid. If Ty or anyone else got the treatment I got at the level I get it, they'd probably be far less cordial and be in a much more constant state of blowing their tops, yet I show restraint and just get dogpiled on more and more, and then if I do blow my top, even though there are hours/days of posts and evidence leading up to it where anyone can see how I've been mistreated by the group, people then mock me for that and even try to get quotes they can use against me later. No one stops to think they're hurting me, no one comes to my aid, no one asks the others to back off or calm down.

No.

Never.

They like and upvote those posts, point and jeer, join the cruelty, cheer on the cruelty, and don't even think it's cruel - they think it's deserved and that makes it okay.

And like in your post, you say I quoted or appealed to a silent majority...when I neither quoted nor appealed to a silent majority nor even mentioned there being a majority at all or what their views might be.

Before this post, in this thread I've used the word majority twice as far as I can tell from CTRL+F each page. Once was saying I support the majority of healer Jobs (SCH, AST, and one of WHM or SGE) being changed. The other was giving someone (I think you?) a hypothetical about what if the situation were reversed and you were in my shoes here, with the majority opposed to you (and I don't think we're going to disagree on the majority of the common posters here being opposed to me). No where did I mention any "majority" or "silent majority" otherwise.

Yet we now have, what, three of your posts berating me for doing this thing, and one of Roe's supporting you berating me for doing this thing?

...this thing I didn't do?

I've now been berated by two users in four posts for saying something...I didn't say.

And who comes to my defense pointing out "Ren didn't appeal to any majority/silent majority"?

Oh, right. No one.

But the posts berating me for a thing I didn't do?

Likes and upvotes, quote supporting, and another quote reiterating the berating.

...for a thing I didn't do.

.

How do I fight that?

How do I change my posts and tone to not have an "air of superiority" when I'm...not talking with one?

How do I change my posts to not appeal to the "silent majority" when I...didn't appeal to the silent majority?

When people are going to interpret tones and words into my posts that were not even in my posts, how do I change my posts to stop them from doing that when they're doing it even if there's nothing in my posts to do so from?

Like, can you find one post in this thread of me mentioning "the majority"? You said I don't give a damn about people who lost the playstyle they preferred in SB, despite me saying I do and consistently arguing for over a year now that they get some of that playstyle back on Jobs so they can enjoy it. What do you base your position that I don't care on, if not my words and actions; as my words and actions have shown that I do care, but your interpretation is that I do not.

How can I counter that?

What change can I make, personally, that will have people stop putting words in my mouth that aren't there, taking out or ignoring words that are in/from my mouth so they can say I don't care/etc, and outright interpreting airs and tones that I don't have?

How can I write differently to fix that, when people seem more than willing to just insert things into my posts that aren't said? When I can directly quote my actual posts to point out I never said the things they accuse me of saying, and then they'll just say it a second time and their posts get upvotes and agreement quotes. Like, how do I counteract that? Can you hear the desperation on my tone wanting to know how to change so I can just have a cordial conversation that doesn't end with literal days of people dogpiling on me?

It sucks.

It sucks so much.

You see how often it happens. As you say, you think it's bad. You don't call it out when it's happening, though - no one does. No one comes to my defense. No one ever even says "I don't agree with Ren, but this is beyond the pale". It's me against everyone all the time no matter what I do. No matter what I say. No matter how cordial I try to be. No matter how good faith I speak in topics. No matter how researched my positions. No matter how many or few words or how much or little time I devote to making what I feel is a worthwhile argument.

It.
Sucks.
So.
Much.

I'm a nice guy, I want everyone to be happy, and I just want to have nice conversations about a videogame I enjoy. Is that so much to ask? I'm pleading and imploring you to tell me the fix.

I'm not being rhetorical; I want to know the answer so I can do it.

Because no matter what I do, even if I do everything right, people seem more than willing to just invent/make up that I did things wrong, then lie about that, refuse to admit I didn't do it, and they do this to cheers and applause as others join in.

How do I fix that??

Even after reading this heartfelt plea, will anything change? Probably not. My posts won't get upvotes, the ones berating me will. No one will come to my defense, so I have to defend myself while just trying to have a conversation and be decent to people and present my arguments. The posts attacking me will be supported with upvotes and supportive/appreciative quotes, yours adding fuel to that pyre, and nothing will change.

.

What can I do, when even not saying something will have people accusing me of saying it?

What can I do, to stop the hostility, the insults, the berating, the scolding, the people derailing threads and blaming me, the people going on unhinged rants against me and being supported instead of called out, the people cheering the attacks on me and making me feel like a garbage and worthless human being for daring to have an independent view - one that just wants something for everyone so everyone can be happy, mind you - about a video game on a forum that's supposed to be for discussion about that video game?

Because it sucks and I just want it to stop.

How do I make it stop?