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

[Renathras]

I started frequenting the forums about a year and a half ago now and idk which impresses me more: That Ren is still this stubborn and has refused to acknowledge that he may be incorrect about literally anything. Or that all of you people keep constantly feeding someone who obviously doesn't want to discuss anything and just wants people to agree with him/is trolling.

What's funny to me is people keep parroting this same talking point when I've outright said I was wrong about a number of things in the past and even use soft/non-certain language ("I think" or "best I can remember" or etc) about things I'm less certain about.

Everyone insisting I never admit being wrong - much less "refuse to acknowledge that (I) may be" - is just lying. I'm just not sure why people are so dedicated to that lie.

I'm not sure what's unclear about it. You admit to wanting the skill ceiling barely above the floor, both at ankle height frequently enough. I merely point out that the Occam's Razor'd explanation for this:

Disparaging and killing nuance is generally going to get you the wrong answer. Doubly so when I've frequently told you you were wrong about what I think. So much so I don't even bother anymore. When you're telling someone else what they must be thinking, even when they've corrected you so many times they don't bother anymore, you're in the wrong.

Thinking about this, most of what I see on reddit, on here, and the few times I go on youtube videos, are not 'keep one healer the same'.

Considering I've literally quoted posts and comments form people saying this here before - in conversations you're in and possibly directly to you - I find this dubious.

At the risk of oversimplification, it seems we have two general groups of people:

1) Those who want more healing.

2) Those who MIGHT want more healing, but think that it will break the game somehow OR that it will just get "solved" a little later (higher ilevels into the tier) and get them back to the same point, so want more damage instead.

There are other groups besides this, though.

3) Those who genuinely like things as they are and kind of want things to stay the same.

4) Those who want to be doing more non-healing, non-damage stuff like buffing or mitigation or movement speed or etc.

5) Those who have no real strong feelings, who mostly are fine with things now, wouldn't mind some changes if they had a Genie lamp and wishes, but are more or less content with the way things are and will take or leave changes.

It's easy to forget the other groups exist, or overlook them. It's kind of like polling which of the two major political parties people support when ~40% of the population (a plurality) identify with neither party and would like an alternate choice of some kind, or a reversion to some prior status quo, or just don't care.

That's the problem with the "damage or healing" ultimatum; it ignores that a lot of people want a different option entirely. And for at least some of the population, the genuinely means "no change". While I doubt it's enough to justify NO CHANGE AT ALL, I think it's fair to say it's enough to justify a pocket of the role exist in that way.

.

I'd say the same in reverse, btw.

If we had some kind of poll and 10% said they wanted more damage buttons and no one else wanted them, I'd say that's enough to justify taking at least one Healer Job and giving it more damage buttons for the sake of those people.

Perhaps if it were a new job,...

I mean...SGE? This is basically SGE. A brand new Job added in EW under this existing paradigm, largely considered easy (the second easiest after WHM and an easier version of SGE). It's basically that very thing.

This is standard Ren "If YOU have an opinion, you need collated survey data that proves a supermajority of everyone on Earth agrees with you in order for your opinion to matter at all.

Oh, and this:

No.

As usual, Semi, you're completely wrong. Again.

Shurrikhan doesn't seem to want to actually address my arguments, so is trying to get off on a technicality. As I pointed out, her demand of proof of support applies to her own position, not mine. My position is not a change to the entire role that denies anyone escape if they don't like it. Meaning her proposal is the exclusive one that should have universal approval to be adopted.

Mine, on the other hand, allows both sides to be happy with it, meaning it has a far lower threshold of only requiring a minority to want one to be unchanged in order to justify itself.

Note that she wasn't able to prove that there IS universal support - because no one can. It's kind of an impossible thing to prove. Which is why making decisions that would require it is a bad idea.

so we'll need to truncate WHM

/sigh

Okay, Shurrikan, define the word "truncate" please.

"truncate" does not mean "maintain the status quo" or "remain in the state it is in".

"to shorten or reduce" is the common definition of the word via dictionaries. Not "maintain in its present state". You'd have to be REMOVING things from WHM to "truncate" it. Leaving it as it is or only making modest additions are not "truncate". Leaving it as it is is just leaving it as it is. No truncation at all. Adding something to it - anything to it - would be extruding, not truncating.

So again, truncate does not seem to mean what you think it means.

Would you be so kind as to DEFINE THE WORD, please? I'd like to see what definition you're using that has "stay as it is" as "truncate". So what definition are you using of the word, if you please? I want to make sure my disagreement with you here isn't just because you're using a word wrong/with a non-standard definition.