Healing is not hard

[IDontPetLalas]

Honestly, I get no test server - datamining and spoilers and all that.

...but it would be nice if they'd show us proposed Job changes in advance. I know they stopped doing it because the community were areses about it, so it's yet another "this is why we don't have nice things" situation, but I really would like more of a heads up.

.

That isn't our analogy. As I already told you, the analogy wasn't about speed, it was about which type of vehicle you like.

Just because you're not following a discussion, or in agreement with its direction, doesn't mean you get to dictate the terms. At this point, you're either confused, or being deliberately obtuse.

Here we go again - car model = healer job. Speed = complexity, number of DPS skills added , for the sake of brevity /simplicity. In this case you maintain your healer job, you have a choice in each job as to your DPS skills.

[Renathras]

Just because you're not following a discussion, or in agreement with its direction, doesn't mean you get to dictate the terms. At this point, you're either confused, or being deliberately obtuse.

Here we go again - car model = healer job. Speed = complexity, number of DPS skills added , for the sake of brevity /simplicity. In this case you maintain your healer job, you have a choice in each job as to your DPS skills.

No, you altered the analogy mid-stream to move the goalposts. I pointed this out and talked about the original analogy. There's no point in moving the analogy all the time. It'd be like if I said "Well, you can drive that carbon emitting monster humvee, but you should leave the Prius for we enlightened people who care about each other and the environment" to make your position look bad, too.

...and it would be just as dumb because "speed" and "pollution" don't matter with class design - player enjoyment and class viability in content are what the relevant factors are here. The original analogy reflected this in presenting a bunch of similar car models, with similar features, that were all viable but which some might not find enjoyable to drive while others are perfectly content with, and the idea of adding new car models that have more bells and whistles or aesthetics or overall designs that appeal to those unhappy with the current selection - while keeping existing models for those who ARE happy with the current selection - makes a lot of sense and is a valid argument.

But then you start throwing in extra metrics not part of the initial discussion that alter several of the established axioms of the analogy - specifically metrics where one is OBJECTIVELY better than another, where the distinction now is SUBJECTIVE. That destroys the analogy and makes it invalid. Worse, it's deceptive practice and a goalpost shift to try and salvage a weakened argument (stealmaning) and try to artificially weaken a stronger argument.

If you want to talk about speed, then we're now discussing some completely different metric and we would have to abandon the first analogy and implement a new analogy. Which is fine, but completely gets us back to square one.

I'm neither "confused, or being deliberately obtuse", and I'm the one who IS "following a discussion". You tried a deceptive goalposts shift, and I pointed this out. If you have to be deceitful to win arguments, that just means your position is flawed to begin with.

[IDontPetLalas]

No, you altered the analogy mid-stream to move the goalposts. I pointed this out and talked about the original analogy. There's no point in moving the analogy all the time. It'd be like if I said "Well, you can drive that carbon emitting monster humvee, but you should leave the Prius for we enlightened people who care about each other and the environment" to make your position look bad, too.

...and it would be just as dumb because "speed" and "pollution" don't matter with class design - player enjoyment and class viability in content are what the relevant factors are here. The original analogy reflected this in presenting a bunch of similar car models, with similar features, that were all viable but which some might not find enjoyable to drive while others are perfectly content with, and the idea of adding new car models that have more bells and whistles or aesthetics or overall designs that appeal to those unhappy with the current selection - while keeping existing models for those who ARE happy with the current selection - makes a lot of sense and is a valid argument.

But then you start throwing in extra metrics not part of the initial discussion that alter several of the established axioms of the analogy - specifically metrics where one is OBJECTIVELY better than another, where the distinction now is SUBJECTIVE. That destroys the analogy and makes it invalid. Worse, it's deceptive practice and a goalpost shift to try and salvage a weakened argument (stealmaning) and try to artificially weaken a stronger argument.

If you want to talk about speed, then we're now discussing some completely different metric and we would have to abandon the first analogy and implement a new analogy. Which is fine, but completely gets us back to square one.

I'm neither "confused, or being deliberately obtuse", and I'm the one who IS "following a discussion". You tried a deceptive goalposts shift, and I pointed this out. If you have to be deceitful to win arguments, that just means your position is flawed to begin with.

No one has been altered anything, and given what I highlighted above, it doesn't seem that you're in a healthy state of mind.