How would you solve the boring "damage rotation" of the healers?

[Renathras]

Ok, now let me ask you this question.

How does giving others who care about damage optimisation a 10-20% ceiling to reach for hurt your fun in any way?

Well, I've already answered this question before, it was the 2nd of your 4. I'll give you a two part answer this time:

a) Because - as I said before - it's relevant when it comes to getting clears.
b) I also don't mind that existing on SOME of the healers, which is why I advocate for the 4HM, so that some healer Jobs can work that way and the people driven to that kind of epeen contest can play it. We have a similar situation in the Caster role now where the tryhards have BLM and everyone else has SMN.

But what do other people who do not have the same tastes as you have to enjoy?

Four.
Healers.
Model.

Have a Healer Job (or 2 or even 3) for those people. Have I not said this over and over again? It's like you aren't listening.

How does denying them their enjoyment make things better for you?

Four.
Healers.
Model.

That wouldn't be "denying their enjoyment". However, to answer your question in the reverse - if they got what they wanted on ALL FOUR HEALERS, then that would deny me MY enjoyment of the role. How does denying me my enjoyment make things better for them? How does allowing me my enjoyment make things worse for them? Especially when I'm locked to only one Job while they have 3?

How does that not make sense to you? What doesn't make sense to me is you refusing to accept that giving them what they want on all four Healer Jobs would deny me and people like me enjoyment. Do you not care about us? Why must we be sacrificed totally for your sake when we're already offering you 75% of the healer Jobs? Why must you have them all? How does having ONE not conforming to your desired playstyle hurt you EXACTLY?

Surely there are some Jobs in this game, across all the roles, that you dislike. Why is it okay for those other Jobs to not be what you like but NOT for even a single Healer Job to be?

.

I do appreciate you asking these questions. But I feel like I've answered them before and they're all asked from only one side.

Basically, they're asked from a premise that doing the more damage thing hurts no one, and since it hurts no one, there's no cost-benefit. It's just all benefit, so there's no reason to disagree.

This is the problem, there's a definite cost. If there wasn't, people wouldn't be arguing against it. So you can't premise it that way. If you ask "Why would giving them what they want hurt you?" you also have to ask "Why would giving you what you want hurt them?", and so on for all the questions.

You are looking for an absolute answer here where you should know it makes no sense.

Wait what?

No, there has to be an absolute answer. You can't use "no effort" as a metric of bad and "effort" as a metric of good (you can't have the one without the other) if you can't define "no effort" and "effort".

That is, you can't use something for an argument/to support a position if you not only can't define it but refuse to do so.

And no, "we'll just have to see" is not a valid answer. What if it's not enough? Then you ask for more? And those of us who were only going along with you begrudgingly this far are asked to bend even more, give up even more while you take and take and take? No, that's not an answer. "We have to pass the bill to find out what's in it" is a dangerous position, not one that can be sustained and not one anyone should agree to. The famous saying applies: "Only an idiot signs a contract without reading it first". The boundaries must be clearly established.

There's a big problem with discussions when you are asking for things but can't even clearly define it. "I'll know it when I see it" sorts of things, which you can't use to build compromises or agreements with. Imagine two nations at war trying to work out a peace agreement and one saying "So where will our new boundary be?", thinking both sides make their proposals then haggle to end somewhere in between, and the other nation says "Well, if you're looking for an absolute answer, I don't have one, and that makes no sense anyway. How about we just give me some of the disputed land and I'll tell you if it's enough later?"