Again, I happened to choose "truncate" (among plenty of other terms) because it conveys that the intent of that action is to limit what future growth or action is possible, which seems your very clear intent. Call it "limit" instead if you like, or "curtail", or "preclude", or "hamstring" healers' future improvements or if it makes you feel better. I do not give a damn.

"I didn't <insert verb here> this child. I merely starved it of <insert resource here> that it'll stay at roughly this size forever." If there's an expectation that something could and should otherwise grow, then going out of your way to preclude that is still limiting it.

At least, though, if you're going to nitpick terms based on chronology-regardless-of-point-in-discourse, then at least do so in both directions.

We are largely on this forum because we do not accept the mere fact that something happened as warrant that it should have happened. Given that, there is no reason to say that all changes up until now are somehow irrelevant just because the developers concluded that they were for the best; there is no authoritative weight there. Nor is there, therefore, any reason to treat the 'status quo' as if it were not, itself, a sum of prior changes, be they for the better or worse.

Just because you got what you want does not mean that others were not screwed over in those prior changes, nor would say, reverting those general simplifications to healer gameplay be any more a change than further simplifications (i.e., continuing along the trend of the last two expansions) would be.


The point of this thread, one would think from its opening post if we (perhaps naively) assumed it had a constructive (rather than merely rhetorical) purpose: To develop a set of very widely agreed upon, and pretty thoroughly reasoned out, criteria for what could make healer downtime and the broader healer experience more enjoyable.

Now, we start to actually do that, developing a set of unobtrusive and highly reasonable fundamentals to work from. These could and seemingly should be applied to every job as those improvements could come literally without cost (to anyone not simultaneously paranoid that their limited effort wouldn't necessarily both max out their job's potential and be able to fully compete with those putting in more effort, regardless of the havoc that'd place on broader balance). So if that discourse is proceeding as it seemingly should in that it is steadily generating understandings of what can make downtime more enjoyable and unobtrusive guidelines around that.

You then say "No, job A shouldn't benefit from this. Job A needs to remain in <the form being broadly critiqued, for widely held reasons>. This one should uniquely not have those opportunities for growth." And somehow not supposed to be seen as limiting or reductive?