#FFXIVHEALERSTRIKE

[localareanetwork]

Most of those are way more dependent on mitigation than actual healing. Life's agonies is hard on SCH+SGE I'll give you that, but otherwise lol.

Yeah I replied because that poster asked for healing and tanking kits. They didn't specify raw literal healing. I think the only examples of actual hard raw healing this entire expansion is life's agonies without healer lb, p8s, and criterion

[Gemina]

I really don't care what direction healers take- that's not my point. I'm looking at this from a cost/benefit perspective. Let's say currently, X players are upset with the state of healers and want them to change, and Y players really love the state of healers and would be upset by any change. SE cannot truly know the relative values of X and Y. The options are invest 0 resources and have X upset players, or invest a significant amount of resources and have Y upset players. Without significant evidence that X >>>> Y, I fail to see why SE should invest in a rework.

I understand the point of this "strike" is to try to give SE that evidence that X >>>> Y. But demands like this:

That's not the case at all because even if you do enjoy healing in its current state, you are still replaceable in all all forms of content. That was my main point in Cole's video when he talked about being a ride or die SCH, and I wish I could personally tell him that his presence in any duty in this game neither makes or breaks it. The demand from striking healers for more damage options, and/or more punishing content are not their primary concerns. Both have been tolerable of these circumstances in ARR/HW and ShB respectively. It was EW where this ended, but they hoped DT would address the primary issue. It didn't, and now here we are. That is why I am telling you using this angle only dismisses that concern while trying to pit them against each other again. The 'No healer, no problem' is now a meme, and it is for a reason. Because it's true.

[HighlanderClone]

Yeah I replied because that poster asked for healing and tanking kits. They didn't specify raw literal healing. I think the only examples of actual hard raw healing this entire expansion is life's agonies without healer lb, p8s, and criterion

Which is in itself a huge problem because mitigation is not controlled by the healer, at least, in a good static it shouldn't be.

We need way more mechs that require raw literal healing and/or shielding like o8s heartless archangel, o4s white hole, p3s life's agonies, etc.

There are a lot of ways to make you feel like a healer in encounters but they just don't seem to want to do it.

[xbahax92]

Making big changes is just as likely to generate bad publicity (see: the removal of Kaiten). I also think you're severely overestimating the size & impact of this thread relative to the size of the playerbase.

The same can be said about several other topics. Male Viera, Female Hrothgar, multiple Benchmark threads, Story .

All those threads are just "a drop in the ocean". If you were to argue about the sheer amount of posts and likes of the first 2 threads..
Yeah they gained a lot of popularity. But, we're still just a "minority", who show up on the forums, right? It still was enough to get YoshiP acknowledge the issues.
And I can promise you one thing, those "show your support" threads had as much oppositions and trolls.

[Moonjava]

That's not the case at all because even if you do enjoy healing in its current state, you are still replaceable in all all forms of content. That was my main point in Cole's video when he talked about being a ride or die SCH, and I wish I could personally tell him that his presence in any duty in this game neither makes or breaks it. The demand from striking healers for more damage options, and/or more punishing content are not their primary concerns. Both have been tolerable of these circumstances in ARR/HW and ShB respectively. It was EW where this ended, but they hoped DT would address the primary issue. It didn't, and now here we are. That is why I am telling you using this angle only dismisses that concern while trying to pit them against each other again. The 'No healer, no problem' is now a meme, and it is for a reason. Because it's true.

Again, the actual state of healers in the game is irrelevant to my point. You're demanding SE spend a lot of money to make a lot of changes. Where is the evidence that those changes will generate a net increase in player satisfaction that is large enough to justify the cost? Absent that evidence, these demands are purely based on personal preference, and what gives your preference more weight than the opinions of players who are happy with healers as-is?

[XiaoShengwu]

Making big changes is just as likely to generate bad publicity (see: the removal of Kaiten). I also think you're severely overestimating the size & impact of this thread relative to the size of the playerbase.

(see: removal of Cleric stance. Removal of Original AST cards. Removal of the AST stances. Removal of the 2nd set of AST cards...i can go on) We've been in this position longer than the removal of Kaiten.

[Gemina]

Again, the actual state of healers in the game is irrelevant to my point. You're demanding SE spend a lot of money to make a lot of changes. Where is the evidence that those changes will generate a net increase in player satisfaction that is large enough to justify the cost? Absent that evidence, these demands are purely based on personal preference, and what gives your preference more weight than the opinions of players who are happy with healers as-is?

The traction and awareness that this movement has caused is your evidence. Where was it previous to the changes the dev team already spent their money on demanding that healing be made into the monotonous, over-simplified snoozefest it is today? Do you think that all of this is restricted to these forums? It's everywhere now. Articles have been written, it's on social media, monetized content creators have made videos about it, even the supposed carefree casual playerbase within the game have talked about it, inside of duties. So when you say players are happy with healer as-is, I would say to that "all evidence to the contrary."

[Rehayem]

There's few things I noticed that are common in this thread:

- People who say healers are just fine, are generally players that started during ShB, very few earlier than that, which causes them to have a biased opinion
- People saying "well if you don't like healers in FFXIV then go play WoW lol" is not an adequate criticism because the underlying issue is still prevalent in the game. While SE might just ignore this feedback (as they always do anyway), the issue will grow bigger and worse as we move further into future expansions. 8.0 could be even worse, so who knows?
- When suggested to give healers more DPS options, many are crying out "go play DPS if you want to DPS", but SE wants healers to DPS... however, how 1 button spam is adequate in this regard? With 7.0, 3 out of 4 healers have their second damage button locked behind another skill, usually a 2 minute one.
- When suggested to increase damage received, many are crying with "casuals won't be able to heal that through" or "just play hard content like savage or ultimate"

Ultimately telling people to play other games is no different than YoshiP telling you the same -- he's aware his own game is in dire state and pretends it's fine. People can go play other games, sure, but a new batch of complainers will come, and the story repeats. Nevertheless, telling people to go play WoW just isn't good, because not everyone likes WoW, and people are wanting to play this game. We are paying customers after all.

Many have already switched from healer main to any other job, so telling them to play DPS just falls flat.

[Lyth]

If the goal is to make healers combat medics, which I personally am completely fine with, then we cannot continue having 1 attack that comprises of almost all our DPS. If that’s the case, then every healer should have a DPS rotation as robust as the tanks comparatively, or in other words, not literally the same, but roughly the same complexity levels.

Not everyone wants that of the healer role, and I would prefer to find a more common ground, but if the goal is to be more or less offensive support, then that’s the direction we need to go in.

If that’s not the goal, then we need to increase the healing requirements. It’s about proportionally equipping healers with tools that reflect the effort they’re putting in.

We’re in a position that’s inversed. We are loaded with healing but rarely heal. We attack constantly but have nothing to attack. Constantly people who do not heal tell us we’re not allowed to have more damage to heal and not allowed to have more attacks to use. It’s, quite frankly, a load of BS. I’m not here to sit on standby and wait for you to mess up. I’m here to enjoy the game like everyone else.

I think that it's reasonable to have a more even split between offensive actions and defensive ones on supports. Tanks have this as well, and some offensive actions have a dual function in terms of offensive and defensive value. A lot the 'job identity' of supports depends on what you do with their non-defensive/utility toolkit, because everyone needs to be able to provide the same baseline defensive functionality, which ends up being homogenous. You can't create that sense of 'identity' with only two offensive actions.

Out of curiosity, how big is the subset of healers that is against this approach? And if they are opposed to having more than two damage buttons, what do they want to see fill that space? I see this tiptoed around a lot, but I'm not sure who is actually advocating against this in practice.

[TheDustyOne]

And if they are opposed to having more than two damage buttons, what do they want to see fill that space?

More bloated healing of course. /s

I'll give the benefit of the doubt and say they likely want buffs and debuffs rather than raw damage. I don't think that it's a particularly large subset of healer players, and the ones that want that already have AST.