For those who main/semi-main a DPS (e.g. DNC, RDM) but like Healers...

[Renathras]

Again, not a claim I made. You tried to twist part of your preference into being a claim of those opposed to truncating job's skill ceilings. It's not. It's yours.

Your exact quote:

No, having only minimal variation as a result of skillful play is not some super broadly held preference. It's yours.

Note nothing here is talking about "my preference" being "a claim of those opposed to truncating job's skill ceilings" (an overly complex way of saying "argument of people wanting wider gaps between skill floor and ceiling" using a double negative between opposed and truncating).

You asked a question: Why do a thing.
I gave an answer: Because some people want it.

That's not "my preference", it's not "being a claim of those opposed to truncating". It's an answer to the question of "Why should we/do we need to do a thing in this game's design". You tried to turn me answering a question into an attack on me, and then when I pointed out others probably share the same position, you tried to move the goal posts with that strangely obfuscating double negative sentence construction.

If your <argument> of some jobs being arbitrarily given lowered skill ceilings is "what people find fun", that claim would depend on that group being large enough to outweigh the preferences of those who would prefer the ... option of not arbitrarily truncating certain jobs skill ceilings

Okay...no.

All it requires is a fair sized percentage minority to justify doing this with one of the healers. 1 out of 4 is 25%, so anything from 15-40% would justify making one healer to appeal to those people. It does not require an outright majority. Moreover, it's unlikely there's an outright majority for either position, given there are 3-5 possible positions to hold on the topic. It's more likely every one of them is a minority position and the largest one is a plurality, not a majority.

This is only relevant if you believe that the amount of people wanting it to matter would be harmed by A SINGLE JOB breaking with that pattern AND that they're the majority, not a plurality or minority. You haven't proven any of those positions, so the argument is moot.

Regardless, my position does not require a majority be for it. Your position, on the other hand, requires majority support, which you haven't proven.

You are the one asking for the explicitly exclusive option,

No, you are.

your position is explicitly exclusive since it demands all Jobs conform to your model with no exceptions, which also requires not only a majority but a DOMINANT and NEAR TOTAL majority should agree with it. You want to shift the onus onto me which your own claim is the one that demands.

My argument isn't exclusive since it allows variance. Your argument is exclusive because it does not. It excludes any alternative, and any players who do not enjoy your system.

Thus the burden of proof lies with you that your preference to limit others' gameplay is held by a large enough group to warrant that meeting that preference is the way forward.

.

But as I pointed out before:

This is sophistry.

This is you trying not to address an argument by trying to attack foundations (that it doesn't have nor require), which is especially destructive to your position as your own argument DOES have those foundations and DOES require them, shifting the burden of proof to you. You'd have been better off to simply address the argument in the first place rather than try to invalidate it through ancillary arguments upon which it does not rely nor hold connections to.