Whether intended or not, the first part of your post sounds very...aristocratic? Technocratic? "It doesn't matter if this affects other people and they don't like it, they're ignorant children who just don't know any better."
But be that as it may, my point in presenting the quotes was to show that this forum - for whatever reason you want to try to justify it as - is/has been an echo chamber on these issues, and has not been more accommodating to different ideas, which was Sebezy's argument.
Something that I need to state here: When someone presents an argument, and someone counters THAT argument, bringing up a different argument and presenting it as not countered/debunked isn't really fair. I didn't present those quotes to debunk the argument that people of certain calibers, experience, or whatever else think a certain way. That wasn't the discussion. The discussion was whether this place seemed to have a narrow set of represented/accepted views and whether Reddit was more or less accepting of diverse views.
I think I made the case pretty clearly that this place DOES have a narrow set of represented/accepted views, and that the mainsub in Reddit is more accepting of diverse views, which was debunking that argument.
If you want to engage in arguments as to WHY that might be, we can, but that's a different argument. And as I say, sounds rather aristocratic/technocratic, which I don't tend to find a good thing, personally.
.
As to the likes in the above post:
As I said, people here dislike me since I'm dogged about representing a different viewpoint, and so "Attack Ren" is what gets likes. People have argued for months that isn't true (and there have been other cases I've pointed to that suggest it is), but that's the most stark example yet. So next time someone talks about which posts have likes and which don't, as if that's relevant to good or bad ideas, I will point again to this as the reason likes are a meaningless metric, as people are willing to like a post that presents the same idea I have as long as the poster attacked me before saying it.
I think that's the general consensus most everywhere else that isn't here. Or, at least, that people are accepting of it.
Isn't the issue with SMN/RDM not that SMN is easier so much as that RDM does LESS damage? It's not that SMN does the same damage for less work, it's that SMN is actually an outright DPS gain over RDM. We see a similar situation with the Tanks. While WAR was doing less damage than DRK and GNB, people didn't really care (people grumbled, but it wasn't destroying the meta) and GNB was still the most played with DRK represented pretty well. With the last patch where PLD and WAR got buffed (PLD is still on the weaker end), WAR now not only is easier to play, it also has the superior personal and party mitigation and healing suite (did Shake It Off really need a HoT in addition to its other effects on the Job that already has Nascent/Bloodwhetting?), but it ALSO has on many fights the higher damage. There's literally no reason to take a DRK over a WAR unless you just like it's aesthetics as it's doing less damage, harder to play, and doesn't have a better mitigation or HEALING kit than WAR does, and PLD is likewise weaker. So we've seen WAR's use statistics explode.
So the SMN/RDM issue is less that SMN does the same damage as RDM as it is that SMN does MORE damage than RDM.
.
I do think the difference between "leave WHM the same" and "completely rework SMN" is the latter was pulling the rug out from under people. A lot of people liked old SMN and not only did they lose that with new SMN, not only was the Job they liked changed, there was no alternative. There was no Caster introduced that they could even swap to for that playstyle.
On the other hand, what we're talking about here is far more likely to alienate mains of OTHER Healer Jobs who like their simple kits being robbed of them, but if WHM stays the same, people who like it right now won't be alienated, and it'll be a "port in the storm" for people that like the other Healers' current simple playstyle. They might have to level/swap Jobs, but at least they have that option, which SMN did not.
If anything, the SMN change highlights, imo, the reason we need to leave AT LEAST one Healer alone.
I agree with your assessment there on why it makes sense to leave WHM alone and why SE probably would do so. I think the important thing is that the healers be made distinct. Leaving one alone is fine as long as the other three are distinct from it. As I often say, the problem right now is that they're all the same simple, making them all the same complex wouldn't improve the situation, they'd just be homogenized a different way. Better to make them all different in that respect, so that everyone has at least one they like.
And when people bring up aesthetics, I point out that's always going to be true. Some people love BLM's looks but want a FF single-player game version of it, like Vivi from FF9 who just casts their one most powerful spell (or an elemental weakness to the enemy type) over and over then uses Osmose when they get low on MP. But people who enjoy that playstyle won't get it with BLM here. At the end of the day, you can't have every aesthetic/Job to yourself, no one can, and no one should. We each have to decide which we like better, the aesthetic or the playstyle, and as much as possible, the Devs can try to match aesthetic to playstyle. Like SGE is this big brain hyper-smart Greek doctor mixed with Gundam pilot to control their nouliths, so them being a complex Job speaks to that fantasy, while WAR also really appeals to the people that play it because the people that find "unga bunga" appealing are going to find a Job that plays "unga bunga" appealing as well. The match is strong enough WAR players seem to be very satisfied with it.
...but there will be some people whose preferred aesthetic and playstyle don't match up, but that's unfortunately life. Even if we made all the Jobs identical for that person so they could have their pick of aesthetic, that would upset everyone else who doesn't like that. And this is generally accepted in most games. If you play D&D and want to be a character that wears plate armor, casts powerful offensive magics, has the strongest healing spells in the game, can hide in shadows, and can detect and disarm traps, while also pelting enemies with your powerful composite longbow...well, that option isn't there. You can get something close by mixing multi-classes or getting to stupidly high levels where you can abuse some traits (like Rogue "Use Any Item"), but for the most part, you have to pick the parts that you like best. Maybe you choose to go with plate and healing spells and forego the rest with Priest, maybe you give up on the offensive spells and trap detection and try to keep the rest with Ranger, maybe you decide to dual class Fighter into Cleric or Thief into Mage, or maybe you go with the Fighter/Mage/Thief tripleclas Swiss Army Knife. But no matter what you do, you're still going to have to give some things up and decide which parts of aesthetic and gameplay are most important to you. We all do it, and that's just the way it is with games that don't just have an open ended skill system.
But well, I don't really want to read 10s of pages of posts to find out whether mine and yours idea is popular or not. But I'll stand by it (unless someone gives me some insight why it's bad idea, of course), even though I understand the risk of it being implemented the same way SMN was. My reasoning is that WHM is simply most favorite job for casuals, so I think that if SE actually did some drastic changes to healers, WHM is last job they would drastically change, especially if it meant making it more difficult. I myself would love if all 4 healers were very distinct, had a lot of space for skill expressions, and had better gameplay than 12111111, but I really think that keeping one simple job for casuals is much more realistic scenario that SE might consider and even implement. They do not want to alienate casuals which are playing WHM because of it's simplicity, it's simple as that.
Irrelevant to healers:
You mean the one where Titanmen doctored a quote from me to mislead people, cutting out the part where I said that it was doable on spells but had a very small frame to do it in and people decided to ignore that? Most of the people attacking me for that were attacking me from other threads and just saw that as something they could pounce on, not a legitimate disagreement. That seems to happen a lot around here. As far as neutral tone and escalations, I don't have quotes from other people in my signature to belittle or mock them.
I'm not always right, but I'm also not always wrong when people attack me. I don't remember everything in the post, but there were several posts in there where I WAS saying things correct and people didn't care. Because whether the information was correct or not wasn't relevant to them. Attacking me was what they cared about and wanted to do. It's kind of like the people there who will attack Renault for harassment and bullying but refuse to attack Titanmen for harassment and bullying. What that says to me is opposition to harassment and bullying isn't something they actually care about - if they did, they'd call out both - instead, it's just a thing they can use to attack the one guy they don't like while not attacking the guy they like for the same crime.
And one more thing is that a lot of times, people like reading into my posts things that aren't there. It's happened here before, and it happened in that same thread you mentioned. Someone even later seems to have realized it when I said "Why didn't you ask me to clarify instead of assuming the worst?"
Some people's opposition to me is fair, and I tend to actually respect that. Many are not. It doesn't "seem" like everyone's against you in the cases where everyone is, in fact, against you. /shrug
But this is irrelevant to all this discussion and neither here nor there. I moved on, and if other people can't, then there's nothing I can do to help that along anyway. Like your sig, for example.![]()
Thanks for the thread, will look it over.
As to the video: The guy is snarky, as that's his style, but he says twice in it this general suggestion, so it doesn't seem he was being sarcastic in it. He says it in the middle of the video and then again at the end. Around 6:15 ("You know what would be surprising though? I don't even want to remove the one DPS button playstyle. Let one healer have this stupid ass rotation - probably White Mage - that way people don't lose their unga bunga role. Embrace some uniqueness where this game allows you to.") and then at the end. And in both places he says his reason for being frustrated with SGE is how over-safe it played it. "I just don't want every single healer to feel exactly the same at the core", which is my own position as well.
He sounds snarky, but not disingenuous when he says it both times.
And, as we've discussed here before, he's actually wrong on that one thing - that encounter design has always been the way it is now. Boss autos with possible crits, random targeted damage, few oGCD heals, etc.
CNJ isn't a full Job. You literally cannot que for some content on it.
This is like saying "If you want a complex healer, go play BLU". Sure, that's AN answer, but is it a GOOD answer when you can't do basically any content on it? Would you accept that as the solution for your desired type of healer? For the Devs to tell you you can get that on BLU as it is right now?
Besides, we even had this same discussion once before...
I mean, they do speak for themselves. I speak for me, others in places like Reddit that I quoted are speaking for themselves as well. You just dismissed their views and statements. You can't call a person a mute when they're speaking a ton and you're just choosing not to listen because you don't think their words deserve being listened to.
Oh, as for the DoTs - I know some of you love the idea of putting more damage into the DoT and less the nuke. Sebezy makes this argument intelligently and cogently. Using math, she's shown that it would be more forgiving to casual players to have more damgae in their DoT......
......
......
......
...if they have decent DoT upkeep. If you have 100% DoT upkeep, then having more damage on your DoT sounds great for casual healers, since it means they can devote more GCDs to healing with less damage loss. Fantastic idea, right?
I did a DF P9N two days ago. The other healer did not use her DoT.
...no no, not "let it drop off". Not "occasionally forgot about it in a heated moment for a minute or something".
No. Didn't use it. At all. As in, the debuff NEVER appeared under the boss health bar.
But she had pretty solid Glare uptime and kept her GCD rolling as far as I could tell between Glare, Medica 2, Cure 2 spot healing, and so on. Kept Lucid rolling pretty well, and used Lilies and Misery.
The only thing she didn't use, like at all, was Dia. Meaning this proposed change that's supposed to help casuals would actually have hurt that casual. Something I don't think skilled players understand is how difficult it is for casuals to upkeep DoTs. I've mentioned it a lot, but for some reason, it's like talking to a brick wall. (I tend to have good, but not perfect, DoT upkeep because I use my 1 min CDs to keep alignment, Lucid on WHM and Aetherflow on SCH [since it's where I often look at my Aetherflow and Chain buttons since they're right next to each other and notice when they're at 30 second increments), but I struggle with that some too when things get hectic or even just not being able to see the debuff fall off the boss (as I've said many times, the native UI which I and other casual players use does not inform you in any noticeable way when your DoT falls off, and there's no way to have the boss healthbar show all buffs so you can see other important stuff on it from party members while having the Focus bar show only your own - at least, not that I've found; not that that would be a perfect solution, but it might help some......though casuals often don't use focus target, either, first time I did was in the Solus fight so I could keep track of his spells, and then I realized how amazingly useful this tool was.)
Anyway, point is, I don't think a lot of skilled players are understanding how casuals play, so they don't understand why their solution/compromise proposals don't appeal to said casuals, and might actually make things worse for them, not better. Until that understanding is reached, it may make compromise difficult, while leaving the people on the skilled side TRYING to compromise very confused as to why their proposals keep being rejected.)
And as to your "Who benefits?" question:
Casual healers do.
I don't understand how this is hard to understand, but making Jobs more complex is going to hurt the people already not inclined towards complexity. Propsals for making WHM more complex do not make GCD heals less punishing. The only thing that would outright do that would be making the GCD heals contribute to Misery, an idea you oppose (I get why you oppose it, your reasons aren't invalid, I'm just pointing out that you do oppose the one thing that would be most casual friendly to do). On the other hand, giving it a more involved damage rotation is going to hurt casual players since it means breaking out of it to cast GCD heals, the comfy fallback of the casual, is more punishing, not less. That the damage comes from 5-10 buttons instead of 3-5 doesn't make it more friendly unless those buttons do damage even when not pressed or the Job is given mechanics to increase their damage when they engage with their GCD heals.
I'm not sure how this is difficult to understand.
The people helped by the change are the people bored right now, not the people who are not.



Reply With Quote


